Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the brief exchange that we had yesterday afternoon in the Chamber, is it possible for today's statement on pensions, which I am sure will deal with important matters, to be held over to another day in view of the large number of hon. Members who want to take part in today's Adjournment debate?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for the timing of statements. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that I can do anything about it.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Middle East

Mr. Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position concerning the establishment of a middle east conference; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The United States Secretary of State is continuing his attempts to secure the agreement of all parties to the convening of a peace conference. He has our full support.

Mr. Hicks: While acknowledging the error of judgment made by the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organisation during the recent Gulf crisis, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that the problems associated with the Palestinian people remain and, indeed, that their solving is central to obtaining any middle east settlement? Is not it about time that the international community, including the Americans and the Israelis, gave them some positive encouragement to act in a positive way?

Mr. Hurd: I believe that Mr. Baker's initiative is very much in the interests of the Palestinians. I agree with my hon. Friend that the PLO cannot be ignored because it

made a grievious mistake in the Gulf war, but it can help by supporting the Palestinian leadership in the occupied territories and by re-emphasising its National Council strategy of 1988 on a negotiated settlement with Israel.

Mr. Strang: Since later today the United Nations Security Council will consider another aspect of the aftermath of the Gulf war—what proportion of future Iraqi oil revenues will be used for the rehabilitation of Kuwait—do the British Government support the proposition that 30 per cent. of those revenues should be used for that purpose or would they, like the United States Administration, prefer the figure to be increased? In any case, the sooner a settlement is reached the better, regardless of whether the figure is 30 or 50 per cent.

Mr. Hurd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The discussion has gone on long enough and we must bring it to a conclusion. It seems that a conclusion of about 30 per cent. is attainable and, I think, about right.

Sir Dennis Walters: With regard to the middle east peace process, as the weeks and months go by and no advance is made on the Baker initiative, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for a more vigorous approach to be adopted, or are we going to accept that Mr. Shamir has the right to veto any progress towards peace while continuing to defy international law and the United Nations resolutions and that, therefore, double standards apply in the middle east and will be tolerated?

Mr. Hurd: The present position is that President Bush is waiting for a reply from several middle eastern leaders to letters that he sent after Mr. Baker's latest visit, setting out the areas of agreement and disagreement. There has been some progress, as my hon. Friend will know, but it is not decisive. I believe that an initiative backed and led by the United States is essential if there is to be progress towards peace and we should continue to support it as long as there is life in it. I believe that there still is.

Mr. Kaufman: With regard to two of the potential participants in any middle eastern peace conference, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Kuwaiti Government that those of us who were most determined that Kuwait should be liberated are among the most saddened and worried by the capital sentences being passed in Kuwait and by the capital trials taking place there? Will he ask the Kuwaiti Government to abandon them?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Israeli Government that those of us who feel the warmest and closest feelings for Israel are those who feel most strongly that the continued building of settlements in the occupied territories is probably the greatest single obstacle to peace?

Mr. Hurd: I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the trials and sentences in Kuwait. As I understand it, the emir has not confirmed the sentences. Our views are known to him and he will read what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I also agree with what he said about the settlements. As we, our European partners and the American Secretary of State have made clear, there is no doubt that the continued policy of establishing settlements is one of the major obstacles to any sensible peace process.

Commonwealth Governments

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what priority the Commonwealth attaches to the promotion of good government among its members.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): There is wide interest among Commonwealth members in promoting good government. Moves by the Commonwealth Secretary-General to put emphasis on the promotion of democracy will receive our full support. An excellent start, for example, has been made with election monitoring.

Mr. Howarth: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her speech at Chatham house yesterday? Does she agree that as the whole of the eastern bloc and even the Soviet Union are following the lead set by the United Kingdom in dismantling state socialism and moving towards a market economy, it would be conducive to good government in totalitarian and often corrupt regimes in Africa and elsewhere if they did the same? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the readmission of South Africa into the Commonwealth might help to set a good example?

Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on my speech yesterday. The promotion of good government knows no boundaries. Every country that expects to work in harmony with its people needs to pursue good government, accountability, respect for the rule of law and respect for human rights. I agree with my hon. Friend that dismantling state socialism is one of the most important things that we can help those countries to do and it is part of the good government programme that there should be divestment of parastatals. I further confirm to my hon. Friend that as we told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in May, in reply to a report on United Kingdom policy towards South Africa, we would support an application from a post-apartheid South Africa to join the Commonwealth when there is a non-racial democracy.

Ms. Abbott: Does the Minister agree that there is a good Government in Sierra Leone? Do the Government take seriously the question of supporting the Sierra Leone Government against incursions by Liberian rebels?

Mrs. Chalker: I know of the hon. Lady's great interest in Sierra Leone. She will be aware that I have been able to respond to the Sierra Leone Government's call for help by the provision of non-lethal equipment to try to help them to restore the order that they used to have there and which I know they very much want to have again.

Mr. Lester: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essence of good governance is that the government are accountable to their own people and that the people are satisfied with the government? We should be careful, when we promote good governance, which is essential, that we do not try to impose an external model on countries that already have systems that are genuinely accountable to their own people.

Mrs. Chalker: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. That was exactly what I said yesterday in my speech. It is not for us to impose a system on emerging democracies,

but for them to develop a system that is fully accountable to their own people and involves the participation of those people in the system of government.

South Africa

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if when he visits South Africa, he will discuss policy on sanctions and boycotts with representatives of the African National Congress.

Mr. Hurd: I hope to discuss many matters with the South African Government and with representatives of all the main parties in South Africa, including the ANC.

Mr. Hain: Does the Foreign Secretary agree with South African political and sports leaders who say that sanctions have been the main pressure for change, but that the negotiations that are going on risk being jeopardised? There is still no commitment by President de Klerk to one person, one vote. The sports negotiations, although they have made a far greater advance, still have some way to go. I know from personal experience that whites change only when there is no alternative. The Foreign Secretary's premature call for sanctions to be lifted risks jeopardising progress and reversing the momentum for change. Does he really think that he knows better than Nelson Mandela?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is hopelessly out of date. The ANC representatives who came to see me a few weeks ago said that 29 June—in a few days' time—will see the foundation of one non-racial united cricket board for South Africa. The ANC said, "Please do your best to ensure that the International Cricket Council readmits South Africa to international cricket when it meets next month." I hope that the hon. Gentleman will back the ANC in that respect.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the last person to whom the House should listen on the subject of the abolition of apartheid is the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who has done more to delay the process than probably any other individual inside or outside South Africa? Will my right hon. Friend send a message to the International Cricket Council and to Mr. Colin Cowdrey, its chairman, when it meets in London next month, that the British Government are totally satisfied with the moves by the South African cricket authorities and Government and with the fact that cricket there is now fully integrated? Does he further agree that we should resume test matches against South Africa immediately?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is well placed to modernise the education of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) in these matters. Surely it is sensible that, as South African sport becomes integrated sport by sport, those sports should be readmitted to the international family. That is what is about to happen with cricket. I hope that the whole House will support—and will urge the Caribbean countries and India to support—South Africa's readmission to international cricket.

Mr. Winnick: When one examines the tragedy that befell South Africa from 1948 onwards, is not it clear that it is precisely the people who fought that tyranny—first and foremost people in South Africa, but also those outside who urged sanctions and boycotts—who have


helped to bring about the present situation? Is not it a fact that time and again Tory Members, such as the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), have defended in every possible way the tyranny that is now being disbanded in South Africa?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that that is true of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). It is certainly not in any way true of the Government. Whatever the past arguments, sanctions are now out of date. We have now dealt with sport. On investment, I believe that the more investment that is made in South Africa now, the better the chances for building the new South African nation after apartheid.

Cyprus

Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet the Secretary-General of the United Nations to discuss Cyprus.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed the Cyprus problem with the UN Secretary-General on 20 May and next plans to meet the Secretary-General at the UN General Assembly in September. We maintain regular contact with all parties, including the UN, in support of the UN Secretary-General's initiative.

Dr. Twinn: Given our special and close relationship with Cyprus, will Britain take an active part in the renewed round of efforts to secure a just solution to the Cyprus problem? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the British Government will encourage Turkey, our NATO ally, to take a more positive response to this round of talks?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He takes a close interest in the subject and, as he knows, the United Kingdom is closely involved with Cyprus, through traditional links, and is a guarantor power. We have put great efforts into helping the United Nations to find a way forward through continuous diplomatic contacts with all parties, including our fellow guarantor powers, Turkey and Greece, and the secretary-general himself. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have had valuable talks with the President of Cyprus. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw the Turkish Prime Minister in April and spoke to him on the telephone a few days ago.

Mr. Cox: The Minister said that we were one of the guarantor powers of the island of Cyprus. Will he assure the House that we will use the influence that that role gives us to ensure in any settlement, first, that lands and properties that have been taken from either Greek or Turkish Cypriots are returned to their rightful owners and, secondly, that any settlement will include free movement for people throughout the whole island, be they Greek or Turkish Cypriots, without any restrictions whatever?

Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes, Sir. In their position as a guarantor power the Government believe that the best way to exercise their influence is by supporting the United

Nations Secretary-General. Certainly, any settlement will have to take into account both communities' concerns, some of which the hon. Gentleman outlined.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is one of the rare opportunities since 1974 to make progress on this vexed issue? Is not it deplorable that we have an army of occupation inside a Commonwealth country? Does he realise that the so-called green line in Cyprus, which is made of concrete and rusty barbed wire, is one of the few divisions between peoples that are still allowed in Europe?

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The situation in Cyprus is, indeed, a tragedy. The fact that the United Kingdom Government have to maintain the level of troops that they do as part of the United Nations Force in Cyprus underlines that tragedy. I agree with my hon. Friend that the new authority that we believe that the United Nations has and which should be sustained by us all, should enable the Secretary-General of the United Nations, with all our support, to work towards a settlement of that terrible tragedy.

Mr. Anderson: The Minister must be well aware that there is a strongly held view that despite our long, traditional and community links and our position as a guarantor power for Cyprus, Britain has been too laid back in dealing with the affairs of that tragically divided island. Do the Government accept that the road to a settlement must lie through a change in the position taken by Ankara? If so, have the Government made it clear to the Government of Turkey that Turkey's European ambitions will be mightily affected one way or the other by their response to the current prospects of a settlement in Cyprus?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I hope that neither the hon. Gentleman nor the House believes that Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the problem is laid back. As I said before, we are the largest single contributor to UNFICYP. We take the position in Cyprus extremely seriously and we are in constant dialogue with our fellow guarantor powers, two of which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, are Turkey and Greece. As I said to the House a moment ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has continual contacts with President Ozal and we keep up a continual dialogue with all parties in the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House do not feel that we are anything other than wholly committed to supporting the secretary-general in his struggle for a settlement.

Intergovernmental Conferences

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the intergovernmental conferences.

Mr. Hurd: The conferences on economic and monetary union and political union have made good progress, but a number of problems remain to be resolved during the next months of negotiations before the shape of the final package becomes clear.

Mr. Skinner: Is not it ironic that at a time when the Soviet Union cannot handle the 15 nationalities in that empire, the Indian sub-continent is continuing to


disintegrate and Yugoslavia cannot keep its nationalities together, people like the Foreign Secretary continue to waffle on about some grand political design in the Common Market? The truth is that British history and western European history show that in the past 11 centuries treaties have been drawn up between some of the oldest industrialised countries, every one of which, almost without exception, is in the dustbin of history. This latest grand political design will finish in the same place.

Mr. Hurd: I am disappointed with the hon. Gentleman. Up to now, I have disagreed with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about Europe, but at least what he has said has been plain, blunt and brief. He is taking a bad example from his leader.

Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that sovereignty is not some kind of political football to be used for the vanity of politicians? If we are to cede some sovereignty in the interests of creating a modern and vigorous western economy in this country with greater prosperity for all our people, that is something devoutly to be hoped for.

Mr. Hurd: I understand that we are to discuss those matters later today and I look forward to doing so. Although it is not certain, we believe that it is increasingly possible that in both conferences at the end of the year we shall be able to reach conclusions of which the House will overwhelmingly approve. They will reconcile our desire and determination to keep our own identity with our wish to go forward and work increasingly in Europe.

Mr. Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, whatever may be the merits of a single currency, economic and monetary union and a federal arrangement, none of those issues was put before the electorate in a referendum or put before the public for endorsement in the 1987 general election? As they touch not only the rights of Parliament but the rights of the British people to elect and remove those who make the laws under which they are governed, will not the matter have to go back to the British people before any move is made to take away their rights through any of the proposals now before the intergovernmental conferences?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that such matters are best tested in a referendum. They are best tested in the House. That is a continual process, which is continuing again today.

Mr. Janman: My right hon. Friend, more than most, will be aware of the problems being caused to the Government by the Single European Act, particularly in employment and the extension of majority voting. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that at the intergovernmental conference on political union the British Government will veto any changes to the treaty of Rome that extend majority voting?

Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with my hon. Friend about the effects of the Single European Act. It is working out overwhelmingly beneficially to this country. As for our stance in the IGC on political union, perhaps my hon. Friend will await my full explanation in a few minutes' time.

Mr. Robertson: May I press the Foreign Secretary on that point? In the IGC on political union the Government

are isolated on the social charter, the extension of qualified majority voting, any extension of powers to the European Parliament and reforms to the regional and structural funds. As all those matters are of central and fundamental importance to our 11 European partners, will the Foreign Secretary use the veto if they press it to a conclusion later this year?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's premise is wrong and consequently his sequence does not follow. The only matter on which we are sometimes alone is legislation that flows from the social charter. Even there, one directive was passed unanimously again yesterday. Others have failed to make progress not because of Britain but because a sufficient number of countries were opposed to them.

Romania

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Romania.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had wide-ranging discussions with the Romanian Foreign Minister, Adrian Nastase, in London on 9 May. He announced then the extension of the know-how fund to Romania.

Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to the tremendous efforts of the voluntary sector in this country and to the many individuals who, over the past 18 months, have brought relief of many sorts to the people of Romania? I thank my hon. and learned Friend for telling the House that the know-how fund has been extended to Romania. What do the Government hope will be achieved by that?

Mr. Hogg: The know-how fund is a very important instrument of policy to assist the transformation from a command economy to a market-oriented economy. Officials were in Romania recently discussing a number of priority projects with the Romanian Government and we have been able to identify a number of areas in which it will be helpful to make progress there. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about voluntary workers. I had the advantage of attending a meeting last week where I met many of those directly involved.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister take an early opportunity to raise with the Government of Romania, directly or through its ambassador, the fears of Romania's small Jewish community at the resurgence of anti-semitism in that country, especially in the influential and popular press? Is he aware that an all-party group of hon. Members was recently in that country—where 400,000 Jewish people perished in the holocaust—and received assurances from the highest level of the Romanian Government that they would deal with an anti-semitic resurgence if it came about? As it has indeed come about, will the Minister ask the Romanian Government to take action now before the problem gets worse?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a serious point, the force of which I accept. We have already made representations on precisely that issue to the Romanian authorities, and we shall keep the matter under


careful watch because it is important. As and when necessary, we shall make further representations to the Romanian Government.

Miss Emma Nicholson: On behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on Romanian children, of which there are other honorary officers in the Chamber this afternoon, I thank the Minister and Foreign Office staff for the support given to that group and to other aid groups in the United Kingdom when they were addressed last week.
There is much hunger and starvation in Romania. That was particularly true during last winter's dire conditions, and the position is not yet improving. Will the know-how fund be able to bring in expertise on food production, processing and distribution, perhaps by privatising the shops as there is a critical need in that country which will become even greater next winter?

Mr. Hogg: First, I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. The work that she and other hon. Members have performed in the all-party group has been extremely welcome.
The know-how fund's application depends slightly on the project put forward. Some projects such as the kind that my hon. Friend has just described might well fall within the remit of the know-how fund. I will ask its officials to look sympathetically at the point that my hon. Friend has just raised.

Middle East

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his proposals for security and co-operation in the middle east.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is for the countries of the region to reach agreement on future security arrangements. We support their efforts to achieve this and are prepared to help where we can. But we do not envisage stationing ground troops permanently in the region.

Mr. Cohen: Are the United States and United Kingdom Governments not sitting on their military triumphalism and doing little for the future security of the middle east? Is it not the case that the Baathists are still in power in Iraq, the future of the Shias and Kurds is unsafe, there is festering bitterness about the 100,000 dead, with more to come, the west and China have restarted arms sales, Syria and Egypt are already alienated from the allies and there is no hope of any justice for the Palestinians? Should not the Government act, for example, to stop the arms proliferation and set up a conference for security in the region? Or have the glorious victors not got an idea for peace in their heads?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has set a full agenda, and I fear that he was wrong in every particular respect. The Government have been active in all the respects he described. I re-emphasise the support that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just given to the peace process, which is directed to one of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member should also keep in mind the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on arms control, and the strong support that we are giving to the Bush proposals for arms control in the middle east. We have made an effective response to the problems in north Iraq.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. and learned Friend note Conservative Members' welcome for the British Government-inspired series of initiatives in the European Community aimed at achieving a common foreign policy in the middle east, particularly in view of the historic problems of that region which have been somewhat provoked by divisions among the European powers? Is not a most important aspect of future attitude to both the Israeli problem and the initiatives relating to Iraq and the Kurds that a common policy should be developed in the Community, and then applied? Should not we continue to work on this problem through the intergovernmental conferences?

Mr. Hogg: I agree that co-ordinated policies are extremely important, but they are not limited to the European Community. For example, it is extremely important that we work closely with the United States Government in pushing forward the peace process, including its operation in north Iraq.

Sir David Steel: The Minister referred to the excellent statements that were made last month by both the Prime Minister and President Bush on the need to stem the flow of conventional arms into the middle east. Does he share my dismay that since those statements were made the Pentagon appears to be putting together massive arms sales packages to Israel, the United Arab Republic, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Egypt? What effort will the Foreign Office make to ensure that the excellent statements are implemented and that we do not turn the powder keg of the middle east once again into a conflagration?

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that it is important that we actively carry forward President Bush's proposals to control armaments in the middle east. I have considerable sympathy, too, with the broader proposals of President Mubarak. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that in July, in Paris, there will be a meeting between officials of the Permanent Five to ascertain how we can advance the general concepts expressed by President Bush.

Mr. Dykes: As Israeli citizens will also benefit from a genuine peace settlement that is fair to both Palestine and Israel, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a double tragedy would occur if Secretary Baker were to lose heart as a result of the obstinacy of Mr. Shamir, and if Mr. Shamir, with his hesitations and stubbornness, were to assume that a temporary abatement of the intifada would be a signal for him to go easy on the peace process?

Mr. Hogg: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hon. Friend."] Forgive me, he is indeed my hon. Friend. This is an extremely important moment for the state of Israel. I think that it is important that it should take advantage of the opportunity that presents itself. It will be regrettable, I think, if the policy of settlements is pushed ahead, for that would stand in the way of genuine peace talks. Israel will benefit more than any other nation from a peace settlement.

Antarctica

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the meeting of the Antarctic treaty nations in Madrid.

Mr. Garel-Jones: There was general acceptance by most parties, including the United Kingdom, of the draft text of an environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty and of four annexes dealing with marine pollution, waste disposal, conservation of wildlife and environmental impact assessment.
Parties failed, however, to reach consensus on the text of the review article, No. 24, of the protocol. In particular, the United States requested more time to consider the amendment procedure for any minerals ban. A further meeting will be held before October at which we hope that the protocol and its annexes will be adopted.

Mr. Martlew: Included in the Minister's statements in the past has always been the need for consensus between nations on the Antarctic treaty. Will he confirm that the United States Government have moved to a policy of majority voting? Will he confirm also that that is entirely opposed by the British Government? Does he agree that there has been a considerable amount of backsliding by the United States Government? What efforts is he making to ensure that the United States Government sign the treaty that was agreed in April in Madrid?

Mr. Garel-Jones: Fortunately, I do not have to answer at the Dispatch Box for the position of the United States. The hon. Gentleman is right in that the main purpose of the Government's policy has been to seek consensus. He will recall that shortly after assuming these responsibilities I advised the House, with the authority of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that we were reviewing our policy. It was we who came forward with a proposal to seek consensus around a moratorium, and that has found favour with almost all our treaty partners. I am confident that the United States will find a way of joining the consensus that we very much support.

Mr. Foulkes: Does not the Minister recall that on 16 January he claimed that Britain had led the way on Antarctica? In his euphoric letter of 10 May to all hon. Members he said that he anticipated agreement in June. Did he know then that the Americans were planning to sabotage the agreement? If he did, he was misleading us. If he did not, he was being deceived by them. Will he now do what the director of the World Wide Fund for Nature asked in the letter of 20 May to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, to which the director has had no reply, and put pressure on the American Government to accept the draft protocol, to agree a ban on mining in Antarctica and, to use the Minister's own words in the letter,
hand over Antarctica in pristine condition to future generations"?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is trying very hard, is he not?

Mr. Foulkes: Why don't you try harder?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to my letters, because they make it clear that the British Government, without being over-boastful, have some reason to claim that our initiative before the Madrid conference assisted our treaty partners to return to consensus. One leader of a non-governmental organisation, in an effort—misplaced, I believe—to put pressure on the British Government, told me before we went to Madrid that the United States had agreed to a world park.
The point about the negotiations is that it is not for me to answer at this Dispatch Box for other Governments.

The United States knows very well what the position of the United Kingdom is. The United States is studying the protocol at the moment, and I am confident that we shall find a way of returning to consensus.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I regret that I was distracted for a moment and called two hon. Members from the same side of the House. Now I must redress the balance.

Mr. Boscawen: Will my hon. Friend take note of the increasing concern of people who work in Antarctica and the south Atlantic about the future of HMS Endurance? Does he hope very soon to have a concrete answer about what the Government can do in that respect?

Mr. Garel-Jones: As my hon. Friend knows, the vessel underwent a major refit to allow her to remain in commission in Antarctic waters until the mid-1990s. A replacement is planned for that time. No decision to the contrary has been taken.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that what the environment of the Antarctic does not need is hot air and grandiose rhetoric? It needs agreements that stick and are signed, especially by nations with appalling environmental records. Such nations should sign an agreement and be kept to it. Are not the Government to be complimented on continuing to work to bring them all together and get them to stick to a line?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will be aware, as will the House, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was one of the first leaders of any country to welcome the consensus that was reached. I am sure that both my hon. Friend and the House will be interested to know that Her Majesty's Government are already giving close attention to the need for a secretariat to supervise the Antarctic treaty partners and the future of Antarctica.

South Africa

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Her Majesty's Government are making to the achievement of a one-person, one-vote constitution for South Africa before the date of the next scheduled South African parliamentary election.

Mrs. Chalker: We continue to encourage all in South Africa to reach agreement on a new, non-racial and democratic constitution. We are helping the black opposition parties to prepare for democracy and future political and economic life.
We are also working to promote the economic growth and the development which must underpin the political process.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. Will she join me in paying tribute to the South African Government, the African National Congress and the leaders of most of the homelands and the churches, who have allowed tremendous progress to take place since the previous South African elections, so that all but the last barrier to the ending of apartheid have been removed? Will the Minister ensure, however, that the Government make it absolutely clear that the momentum must be sustained?


It would produce bloodshed and catastrophe in South Africa to arrive at the date of the next scheduled elections without a secure one-person, one-vote constitution in place.

Mrs. Chalker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the first step was to get rid of the statutory pillars of apartheid. The South African Government have removed those, and the second step is the negotiation for agreement on a new constitution. All the parties are involved in that, and they are all to be encouraged to reach it in good time. I believe that the South African Government and all the parties are so determined. They may need some help and advice from time to time, and I believe that all nations that believe in the democratic process should be prepared to give it.

Mr. Budgen: Is it not pretentious and dangerous for us to shower unasked-for advice on South Africa? Does not good government, both here and abroad, depend on some understanding of the limitations of both power and influence?

Mrs. Chalker: I am only too well aware of the limitations of power and influence. The British Government have responded to the requests of the South African Government in a number of different ways. We shall continue to respond to that Government and to the various parties—the ANC, the Pan-Africanist Congress, the Azanian People's Organisation and others—to help bring forward that period of negotiations that will lead to a constitution for a non-racial democracy. That is what the people of South Africa want, and that is what they have asked for.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister make it clear to South Africa that Britain would not look favourably on a future system of government involving a one-person, one-vote system for the lower chamber—protecting the rights of all peoples in South Africa, which would be welcome—but under which apartheid nevertheless remained, albeit perhaps in a different form, in the upper chamber?

Mrs. Chalker: It is not for this House or this Government to impose a system on the Government or people of South Africa. It is for the people of South Africa, the South African Government and all the other parties to work out their new constitution—for an upper and lower house, or whatever system of government they choose. If they ask for our help, as they have done, they will get our help. We insist on helping to promote good government in countries that seek to promote good government. I believe that the Government and people of South Africa want that and will pursue it.

Sir Ian Lloyd: I give a warm welcome to what my right hon. Friend has just said, and to what the Foreign Secretary said about an application to join the Commonwealth being favourably considered. Will my right hon. Friend take a broad-brush guess, however, at how many United Nations member countries, or, indeed, Commonwealth countries, on the basis of the universality of their suffrage and the frequency and integrity of their elections, have the right to prescribe to South Africa?

Mrs. Chalker: I do not have a crystal ball, but I do not believe that anyone has the right to prescribe to others —they must work things out for themselves.

Mr. Budgen: Hear, hear!

Mrs. Chalker: I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that South Africa has asked us for that help. That is why we are giving it. We are not giving it unasked.

Baltic Republics

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Heads of the Governments of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia on the current situation in those republics; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have received recent messages addressed by Baltic leaders to western Governments, and remain in frequent contact with the elected authorities in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. I saw the Lithuanian Foreign Minister yesterday. We share the view of those authorities that the problems of the Baltic republics should be resolved through negotiation and without coercion. We have expressed concern to the Soviet Government about recent actions by Soviet forces in the Baltic region and about the Soviet procurator-general's interim report on the Janaury shootings. Under the provisions of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, we and our Community partners have requested a full explanation from the Soviet Government.

Mrs. Ewing: I welcome that positive statement and I recognise the Minister's personal interest in these matters. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman advise the House whether he has had the opportunity to discuss, and possibly to implement, specific projects that would assist the three states economically, socially or educationally until such time as the western world recognises their obvious independence?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady is right to stress the significance of the know-how fund, which has an important role to play. I am glad to say that we have been able to identify some projects in the Baltic republics for support through the know-how fund. For example, we have been able to assist with port privatisation in Estonia, and we have been pursuing projects relevant to agriculture in Latvia and Lithuania.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend tell the House unequivocally that as we have never recognised that the invasion of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the armed forces of the Soviet Union resulted in a legitimate annexation, so we have always and continuously recognised—as we still do—those three countries as having national sovereignty which is independent, and that if they send diplomatic representatives here we shall receive them, just as we kept them in the past for as long as they still lived?

Mr. Hogg: As my hon. Friend knows, we have never recognised the de jure incorporation of the Baltic republics in the Soviet Union; they are, however, de facto members of the Soviet Union. We hope for—and will press for—negotiations between the Baltic republics and the Soviet Union, leading to an agreement that will regularise their relations in a way that is compatible with the desires of both parties. We are pressing the Soviet Union to enter into meaningful negotiations with the Baltic republics.

Sir Russell Johnston: What response did the Government receive from the President of the Supreme Soviet when those points were put to him on his visit to Britain a couple of weeks ago? Will the Government respond positively to the Estonian Foreign Minister, Mr. Meri, by suggesting that trade missions be established in each of the Baltic states?

Mr. Hogg: We are anxious to see how we can develop our relations with the Baltic states. A good example of that is the way in which we have used the know-how fund to support activities within those states.
The Soviet Government are well aware of the importance that we attach to an early and purposeful start to negotiations between the Soviet Union and the Baltic republics. I am disappointed that the working parties that have been established have not been used in a more determined way to push forward negotiations.

Seychelles

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the Seychelles.

Mrs. Chalker: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any current plans to do so. I met the Seychelles Foreign Minister, Mrs. de St. Jorre, when she paid an official visit to Britain in March last year, and meet her often at multilateral gatherings. We have made it clear that, as elsewhere, we support freedom of expression and genuine political participation.

Mr. Bellingham: If my right hon. Friend goes to the Seychelles, she will witness at first hand the antics of a particularly vile extreme socialist regime. She will see numerous abuses of human rights, and no sign of democracy. When such regimes are being increasingly rejected elsewhere, is it not time for Her Majesty's Government to get tough, and to tell Albert Rene that, unless he reforms his country, aid will be cut off?

Mrs. Chalker: We regard the Seychelles as a one-party socialist state which exercises undue restrictions on freedom of association and of expression. I have made it absolutely clear to the Foreign Minister of the Seychelles that we believe in freedom, both political and economic, and that we are looking for change. I agree with my hon. Friend—there are few signs of the moves for change that we intend to come about. Certainly, the help that we have given the Seychelles people—help with health and education—is very limited; I hope that it will assist the people, but we are not in business to help a Government of that kind.

Lebanon

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visit of the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), to Lebanon.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My visit to Lebanon from 9 to 12 June was the first by a British Minister since 1985. I had useful discussions with the President, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and other leaders. They addressed the situation in Lebanon and in the region. I was impressed by the determination of the Lebanese Government to

restore their authority over the whole country. I was also able to stress the great importance that we attach to the release of the hostages held in Lebanon.

Mr. Burns: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that he conveyed to the Lebanese Government the British Government's support for their efforts to reassert their control over, in particular, southern Lebanon?

Mr. Hogg: That is an important point. We strongly support the policy of the Lebanese Government, and that of the Lebanese army, to reassert control in south Lebanon. We are anxious for the militia now in south Lebanon—particularly the Palestinian and Hezbollah militia—to be disarmed. It is also important for the Israeli army to withdraw to Israel, pursuant to the provisions of Security Council resolution 425.

Mr. Kaufman: Having adverted at our last Question Time to the hon. and learned Gentleman's role with regard to the hostages, I pay tribute to his courage in going there. It is not easy to go to such a dangerous country where anybody's life, however well protected, must be at risk. The hon. and learned Gentleman's visit will, I hope, demonstrate to the relatives of John McCarthy, Jack Mann and Terry Waite that the whole House is determined to bring about their freedom.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is too gracious, though I am extremely grateful to him. Incidentally, I should pay tribute to the members of the Royal Military Police, who provide the close protection unit for the ambassador, and to our staff there. They are the people who really deserve the credit. I also had the opportunity to meet all the families, and I pay tribute to them. The courage of all of them is extraordinary, as is their forbearance. I would single out Mrs. Sunnie Mann, an elderly lady who is living in Beirut in a block of flats five storeys up and has to carry the water up to her flat. She is a very brave lady. The House should know that.

Mr. Adley: I share in the welcome given to my hon. and learned Friend for his visit. Has he seen the very useful exchange and comments made by the Prime Minister at a recent Prime Minister's Question Time? Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government still hold the Israelis responsible not just for Sheikh Obeid but for the other Lebanese hostages whom that Government hold? What messages are Her Majesty's Government sending to the Israeli Government about the hostages that they hold?

Mr. Hogg: We have never accepted a linkage between those held by the Israeli Government and the western hostages. There are two reasons for that. First, one does not link one evil with another. Secondly, we do not have the capacity to make the Israelis deliver anything. If we accepted a linkage, the position of the western hostages might be worse rather than better. However, it is extremely important that we should work for the release of all the hostages. I certainly agree that it is highly desirable that the Government of Israel should release Sheikh Obeid and the detainees in south Lebanon. At the same time, the Government of Israel have a perfectly legitimate interest in securing the return of the bodies of their service men, which are now in the Lebanon, together with any of their service men who are still living. All those things are important. To the extent that we can promote them, we shall do so.

Iraq

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position of safe havens in Iraq; and what consultations have taken place with his United States counterpart on this matter.

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the plight of people in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: To reassure the refugees of their continuing safety once the allied forces have withdrawn, we need, first, an effective presence on the ground. There is better progress now in the deployment of the UN security guards. The UN hopes to have more than 400 in place by mid-July. We need a continuing military presence in the region and clear warnings to the Iraqis that any renewed repression would meet with the severest response. We would see this as a multinational force that could be quickly deployed. Finally, we need to continue the sanctions. We are building up these elements with our allies. Meanwhile, it is too soon to fix a final date for the withdrawal of our forces.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that I am very pleased about those safeguards? It would be unforgivable for the Kurds, or any other minority group in Iraq—we should not forget the Shi'ites in the south—to be left to the tender mercy of Saddam Hussein. Even if the Foreign Secretary does not agree with me, will he bear in mind the possibility that the people of Iraq as a whole and the international community may have to pay a heavy price indeed for the fact that earlier this year the allies did not complete the job?

Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. We completed the job for which we put our service men at risk—the reversal of the aggression against Kuwait. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. We have always made it clear that we did not intend to complete the withdrawal of our forces from Iraq in circumstances which would create again the problem that they went in to solve—the flight of refugees to the mountains.

Mr. Strang: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that sanctions against Iraq must be reconciled with humanitarian assistance? He has said that he does not want to see Iraq swept by epidemics and starvation. Is he satisfied with the efforts being made to prevent more than 100,000 Iraqi children under the age of five from dying of hunger and disease this year?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman talks of hunger and disease, and I understand that, but medicines have never been covered by sanctions. Food for humanitarian purposes can go in, as authorised by the United Nations sanctions committee, which does precisely that, but I do not think that the House would think it right to go beyond that and to allow Saddam Hussein to reconstruct his country when he has not fulfilled all the Security Council resolutions and when his ambitions against the Kurds are all too clear.

Mr. Conway: My right hon. Friend will pay tribute to and recognise the contribution of British military personnel, but will he acknowledge the contribution made by British civilians—and in particular by my constituent, Mr. Floyer-Ackland—in giving humanitarian aid to those citizens in Iraq?

Mr. Hurd: Between 150 and 200 British civilian relief workers have been in action in Iraq, and I pay tribute to them. They have shown considerable courage and perseverance in doing the job for which they are so admirably equipped.

Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is bound to be heightened anxiety about the future of the Kurds when allied forces withdraw, because it is still not possible to rely on the benevolence of the Iraqi authorities, not least in the light of their refusal to allow United Nations officials to inspect the suspected nuclear plant in Iraq yesterday?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. Security Council resolution 687 places a clear obligation on the Iraqis, but they are not carrying it through. Another item in the accounts that I must mention is the continued detention of Mr. Ian Richter: we are determined to get him out.

Pensions

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about recent developments in pension provision and to say how the Government plan to build on those developments for the future.
The Government's approach to financial provision for retirement has always been to increase choice and flexibility for individuals while ensuring an economically sound and sustainable system of state support. Thanks to that policy, we now have a much wider spread of occupational and personal pension provision, and much greater protection for those who move between pension schemes.
Better occupational pensions have made a major contribution to increasing pensioners' incomes in the past decade. In all, nearly two thirds of those who retire can now do so with an occupational pension. Taken together with the abolition of the "earnings rule" in 1989, occupational pensions have made it easier for people to decide for themselves when they wish to retire, and for employers to introduce more flexible retirement policies, irrespective of state pension age. By 1990, about 14 million people had chosen occupational or personal pension schemes rather than remaining in the state earnings-related pension scheme. In pensions terminology, that is 14 million people contracted out.
Against that background, we think that the next priority for the development of policy in this field is to move in a well considered way to establish, in practice, the equality of treatment between men and women, to which we have long been committed in principle.
I shall begin with occupational pensions. The Government must have regard to an important development in European law. Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the case of Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange Group. Mr. Barber became redundant at the age of 52. As part of his compensation, his employer offered him a deferred pension payable from the scheme's normal retirement age, but a woman in his position would have been entitled to a pension immediately.
Mr. Barber's case eventually reached the European Court of Justice, which gave its judgment on 17 May 1990. At the core of this judgment was a decision by the court that occupational pension benefits are "pay" for the purposes of article 119 of the treaty of Rome, which enshrines the principle of equal pay for equal work. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, article 119 has direct effect. The result of the judgment, therefore, is that there must be no discrimination between men and women in occupational pension schemes, for example in relation to pension age.
As I have already suggested, the Government welcome that principle. Our task now is to address its considerable practical implications for the United Kingdom. Occupational pension schemes with unequal pension ages will be the ones most significantly affected, but many others may need to change their benefit provisions to some extent to comply with the Barber judgment.
The judgment clearly applies to benefits based on service since 17 May last year—the date of the judgment.

The Government will prepare proposals for legislation as soon as possible to require occupational pension schemes to comply with Community law in this respect. I shall consult the pensions industry and other interested parties on the issues involved, and on the implications of equal treatment for the current arrangements for occupational pension schemes to contract out of the state earnings related scheme. The European Commission is itself considering the implications of the Barber judgment, and we shall play our full part in this process.
Those of my right hon. Friends who are responsible for public service pension schemes are considering the implications of the Barber judgment for those schemes. Some modifications will be necessary and they will bring forward proposals for any such changes in due course.
It is unclear whether the Barber judgment applies also to benefits based on service before 17 May last year. Retrospection would be damaging to the economy, to jobs and to the competitiveness of United Kingdom business. Because contributions to many schemes will not have been set at the level needed to fund equalised benefits, the effect would be to confront schemes and employers with large unforeseen liabilities. These could amount to as much as £40 billion to £50 billion for the United Kingdom as a whole, depending on the assumptions made. That would represent a significant shift of resources away from businesses and those in work.
The Government will therefore seek to clarify the implications of the Barber judgment for benefits based on service before 17 May 1990. As the decision of the European Court of Justice can be clarified only by means of a judgment in another case, we have recently agreed in principle to provide financial support for a case concerning the trustees of the Coloroll Group pension scheme if it is referred by the High Court to the European Court of Justice. We shall seek to ensure that the European Court is made fully aware of the potential implications, both for individuals and for the economy as a whole, of applying the Barber judgment to past service. We shall argue before the court that the judgment does not have that effect. We have already been taking steps to ensure that the European Commission itself, and other member states, understand the implications if the judgment applies to service before 17 May 1990.
Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that the Social Security Act 1990 includes provisions requiring final salary schemes to pay indexed pension increases up to a maximum of 5 per cent. These provisions will apply to all such schemes in respect of future 'service and, in respect of past service, to schemes with a surplus. In view of the substantial financial uncertainties faced by occupational pension schemes as a result of the Barber judgment, I do not believe that it would yet be in the interests of the generality of schemes or their members to reach a final decision on when the 1990 Act provisions should be brought into effect. I shall review the position again once the present uncertainties are removed. In the meantime, I remain committed to the principle of limited price indexation of occupational pensions and would encourage schemes to pay increases to their pensioners on a voluntary basis where they are financially able to do so.
I turn now to the state pension scheme. We are committed to achieving equal treatment for men and women in the state scheme as well as in occupational schemes, and in particular to tackling the issue of unequal pension ages. There are a number of possible ways of


doing that, ranging from a single common pension age to equality of treatment within a flexible scheme which has no single pension age.
The idea of more flexible pension arrangements is one which commends itself to people both inside and outside this House. For many people the age at which they can receive their state pension remains the major factor in deciding when to retire. We therefore propose to consider in detail whether more can be done to achieve greater flexibility within the state scheme in a practicable and affordable way.
There are many important considerations that will need to be taken into account before any decision is reached on state pension age, including the costs involved, the changing ratio of contributors to pensioners into the next century, and developments in the pension policies of our competitors.
Any changes to the state scheme will require careful consideration and detailed planning, and could certainly not be implemented overnight. The Government believe that it would be wrong to take decisions in this area without a period of public discussion. To help inform the debate, we intend shortly to issue a discussion paper which explores the issues and provides some background information. We shall then bring forward considered detailed proposals in the light of that public debate.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Equality in pension provision is certainly a very important and pressing issue, but since it has been a pressing issue for over a year since the Barber judgment, and since there is not a single new Government proposal about pension equality in the statement we have just heard, is it not clear that the statement is rather less about equalising retirement ages and rather more about expending the necessary time of the House to keep the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) off the television screens at 6 o'clock?
Regarding equal retirement ages, whereas the Secretary of State says that he will review the costs involved, the changing ratio of contributors to pensions, and pension policies abroad, is he aware that the last time that words like that were used was by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), and he used them as a preamble to cutting the value of SERPS by half?
There is one central question which the Secretary of State must answer on this issue and which he ducked in his statement, so I ask it again. Will women still be able to retire at 60 and on a full pension, or are his words meant to rule that out? If he refuses to give that guarantee today, "flexibility" in his language is a euphemism for cutting women's right to a pension at 60, or for paying a reduced pension at 60. If the Secretary of State cannot answer that question, is it not clear that this whole exercise is really a delaying action to push the whole matter of equality for women beyond the next election—when, if his party is returned, he intends to increase women's pension age or to cut their pension?
Turning to the only announcement of substance in the statement, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that his abandonment, for the time being, at least of limited price indexing of 5 per cent. a year is indefensible? Is he aware that surveys show that, at present, occupational pensions are increased on average by only 3 per cent. a year when the average rate of inflation over the whole period of three Thatcherite Governments was 9·5 per cent. a year? Is he

aware, too, that even with limited price indexing of 5 per cent. in place, the average occupational pension, according to the pension actuaries Bacon and Woodrow, would still lose about 60 per cent. of its value in real terms over an average 20-year retirement period? Is it not clear, therefore, that any dropping of limited price indexing today will mean condemning 10 million occupational pensioners to an even faster whittling away of their pension assets, and real poverty for millions with the smallest pensions?
As to the future of limited price indexing, is the right hon. Gentleman saying, as he appears to be, that, if the Barber judgment is retrospective, he is dropping limited price indexing permanently? Is he telling occupational pensioners that they can have either equal retirement ages or limited price indexing but not both? That is certainly what he seems to be saying.
If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that, will he acknowledge that there can be no case whatsoever for dropping that modest improvement in limited price indexing, when pension funds in total were recently standing at about £50 billion?
Is it not even more of a scandal that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to drop, or at least postpone, slightly improved but still inadequate inflation protection for occupational pensioners, while at the same time allowing some of the biggest employers to take contribution holidays year after year because their pension funds are in surplus?
Opposition Members strongly support full equality for women in retirement, but this statement is more vacuous than real and is yet further evidence of dithering by a Government who are afraid to act decisively on the crucial issue of equality for women.
Mr. Newton: I had hoped that we might for once draw a rather more measured and responsible response from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). As it is, we have heard a classic Oldham response—taking up a gun, firing it wildly in the air and finally turning it on himself.
This is a clear statement of commitment in practice, which goes beyond anything that any previous Government have said, to implementing equal treatment in pensions, and I have outlined the steps that we propose to take to that end.
As regards what the hon. Gentleman called the "central" question, we shall publish a discussion paper in which we will set out, as fully and fairly as we can, the costs and implications of all the possible options, including a range of flexible pension schemes. We have made no decision in advance of that—there is no hidden decision. We believe that a decision that needs to take account of demographic patterns over a generation and more and of long-term social, economic and other factors should properly be taken after considerable informed public discussion, which is what we propose to bring about. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not accept that.
There is no question of our having dropped limited price indexation, but we have to recognise that it is a question not merely of a handful of large and sometimes publicised schemes but of many tens of thousands of schemes which do not have large surpluses and which already face considerable difficulties arising from the Barber judgment, even if it is not retrospective. We need to take account of their interests, and we shall be doing no


favours to occupational pensioners or to anyone else by driving an increasing number of employers to give up occupational pension schemes altogether, which is the risk we run if we do not proceed with care.
Finally, the hon. Member for Oldham, West had the nerve to refer to "dithering". This is the man who has gone around the country making one massive pension pledge after another, including equal pensionable age at 60, most of which turn out on examination to be what the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) says are no more than "desirable aims". The hon. Member for Oldham, West has elevated dithering at the expense of pensioners to a fine art.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order was raised about this statement before we started questions today. Forty-nine right hon. and hon. Members seek to participate in the next debate. Exceptionally, I shall curtail questions on this statement, which I am sure we shall return to from time to time, at 4.15 pm, when there will a ten-minute rule motion; then we shall move on to the debate.

Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend recall that I introduced a Bill in 1983 based on an all-party Select Committee report which dealt with equality of age opportunity between men and women and with flexibility? It was never defeated, but simply talked out. Therefore, I invite my right hon. Friend to reintroduce my Bill in the next Session of Parliament. It is all there, there is no problem and I am sure that, if he wanted, we could pass it in July and have it on the statutue book.

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can promise to do as my hon. Friend suggests, but I am grateful for the thought, because I know how much expertise he has in these matters. We shall seek to take account of his thoughts as the public discussion proceeds, and I hope that I am right in reading his remarks as general support for the proposal.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I clarify a comment that I have just made? I intend the questions to continue until 4.5 pm so that we can move on to the debate at 4.15 pm

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney): Any progress towards the genuine equalisation of pensions is widely welcomed, but will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that steps are taken to begin to end the scandal of companies raiding pension schemes for reasons other than the pensions themselves?

Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have made a number of changes in successive Social Security Acts over many years, which are designed, among other things, to protect the rights of early leavers; that very much interrelates with the point that he has raised. I am aware of the continuing concerns, and obviously we shall continue to consider them during the discussion on which we are now embarking.

Sir Robert McCrindle: My right hon. Friend will know that the occupational pensions industry has been more than a little perplexed since the

Barber judgment and has been looking forward to some intimation of the Government's intention with regard to the state scheme retirement age. Will he confirm that, while the very desirable consultation about a possible equalisation of pension ages under the state scheme is proceeding, there is no reason why the occupational pension schemes which have been at the forefront in moving to a common and very often favourable retirement age should not continue to do so, in view of the fact that many of them already permit the men and women to retire at the same age, and very often considerably before 65?

Mr. Newton: I underline the fact—almost as an aside, but not quite—that the consultation is not about a possible move, but about the means to be chosen for a definite move in that direction. That is an important distinction. As for the point about occupational pension schemes, many already have equal pension ages. Their number has grown since the Barber judgment, and I want to encourage further moves in that direction. As far as it is in my power to do so, I want to create a reasonably stable framework of policy within which schemes can take sensible decisions to that end.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Would the Secretary of State not agree that, if they really want to achieve equality of pension treatment, the Government must attack the fundamental inequalities between men and women in the labour market? Does he not agree that the inequalities faced by women in their working lives are magnified in retirement? Should not the Government reverse some of their policies which discriminate against women in the labour market, such as their proposal to abandon the wages councils, which provide minimum wages for thousands upon thousands of women in low-paid employment?

Mr. Newton: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I do not accept his allegations of, as it were, Government discrimination against women in the labour market. According to some recent reports—again following Barber in part—more firms' pensions schemes are allowing entry to women who preponderantly work part-time and I wish to encourage that. That is one problem faced by many women, and I should welcome a reduction of it.

Mrs. Marion Roe: I am delighted to learn of the Government's declaration of intent to equalise the state pension age. I have often raised that issue with Ministers, and I welcome the opportunity of a public discussion about that important issue. Can my right hon. Friend say when he thinks that the European Court of Justice will be able to pronounce judgment on the Coloroll case and thus remove the uncertainties in that case?

Mr. Newton: I cannot be absolutely certain about that, although I believe that the outcome of the Coloroll case is not likely until well into next year. However, a number of other cases are going to or already at the European Court of Justice, including one from Germany, one from Holland and some others from this country, so there is a good deal of uncertainty about the timing of all this which I personally cannot resolve.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: When the Secretary of State said that he was looking for greater flexibility within the state scheme in a "practicable and affordable" way,


does that mean that the discussion document will study other elements of the benefit system? Surely there must be a need for an overall review of the position, given the knock-on effect for housing benefit, community charge relief and other benefits. When will that be published, and what is the time scale for discussion?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady, with her knowledge of these matters, is absolutely right to say that there are closely interrelated issues of other benefits in which unequal age plays a part. We will seek to consider that. On timing, I deliberately used the word "shortly" in my statement, and I cannot refine that further. A great deal of work has already been done, but a great deal of complex actuarial and other work is needed before we can be confident that we have put the best information before the British public. I hope that "shortly" will not mean too long, but I cannot give a clear-cut promise that it will be, for example, before the recess.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend knows well that it takes upwards of 50 years to earn a pension. Can he give the House an assurance that he will consult widely with Opposition parties so that we can go forward together and not have a lot of chopping and changing? Can my right hon. Friend make sure that the Labour party understands the cost implications of many of the pledges or possible wish lists that it keeps putting before the British electorate?

Mr. Newton: I would very much welcome such an interchange with the Opposition, which is why I was genuinely disappointed by the reaction today of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). It is necessary in this area not only to decide what it might be nice to do, but to look hard at the costs and implications over a long period and not just over the next year or two.

Mr. Greville Janner: While looking at the cost implications, is the most important part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement the fact that, if retrospective effect is given to Barber, it will cost the industry £40 billion or more? What does he consider that will do to the industry? What are the Government doing to prepare for that? What steps do the Government propose to take now rather than waiting, as they have done in the past, to decide what to do if something happens?

Mr. Newton: The hon. and learned Gentleman, with his legal experience, will know that we are talking about a judgment of the European Court of Justice which I cannot determine and which I cannot invite Parliament to overrule by an Act of Parliament. It is too early to speculate along the lines that the hon. and learned Gentleman invites me to consider. Equally, the effects on British industry will vary very much from scheme to scheme. The worst case—[Interruption.] It might be helpful if the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) would listen to this. The effects will be very variable, and I invite people to think about the position of a scheme, for example, which has few women and many men in the declining industry in which fewer and fewer people make contributions. That is a maximum difficulty area.

Mr. Iain Mills: May 1 ask my right hon. Friend to agree that it is about time that a Government recognised the long-standing problem of equality of retirement age? Will he accept my congratulations on the

fact that, despite the synthetic indignation of the Opposition, he has finally made a proposal that will lead to a solution? Consultation is obviously essential. Can he enlighten us on the resource implications of the various options open and comment on the resource implications of a flexible scheme? I congratulate him—I hope that he will accept this—on taking the first step.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the purposes of the discussion document will be to set out resource and other implications, including those for the labour market, which must not be minimised, in more detail than I conceivably could this afternoon. As a broad range, one is talking, as is suggested in a costing that we published recently, of a cost of around £3 billion for equalisation at 60 and a saving of about the same order for equalisation at 65, and there are a range of options in the middle. The exact costing would depend very much on what one chose. We will seek to set all that out for a proper discussion.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Has not the Secretary of State again understated the value of SERPS in enhancing the pensions that are paid to today's pensioners and overstated the value of occupational and personal pensions? Is he aware that half the value of the contributions that are paid into a personal pension scheme in the first year are swallowed up by commission, and that independent analysts tell us that at least 1 million people who are now making personal pensions contributions will shortly find it in their best financial interests to opt back into SERPS? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that his Department will advise those people when is the right time for them to opt back into SERIS?

Mr. Newton: We have repeatedly said that people must take their own advice on their own situation, because the relevant factors will vary greatly from one person to another. I do not accept the generality of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, because the popularity of personal pensions reflects people's wish to have greater choice and flexibility. One of the ways in which we have already moved a long way towards achieving flexibility for many people is by enlarging their capacity to make such choices for themselves.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one consequence of this welcome announcement will be the raising of expectations in many people's minds that the equalisation of the pension age might actually come about? Does he further agree that nothing could be more cruel and more likely to dash those hopes than for the Labour party to give people the impression that the equalisation of the pension age is an easy option, with no resource implications? Is that riot what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) offered, and is it not completely bogus?

Mr. Newton: Yes, I do agree with that, and it is what I had in mind when I intended to say that it is not responsible for the hon. Member for Oldham, West to go around the country apparently promising retirement at 60 for all, when everybody else in his party says that that is not a policy or a promise, but just a "desirable aim".

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that his statement is a timely reminder of the fact that, to date, those concerned


with equal treatment for women have more reason to thank the treaty of Rome and the European Court than the British Government? If we are to have both the flexibility of choice as to retirement between the ages of 60 and 70 and equal treatment, which my colleagues and I would say is right, should we not be able to move quickly towards implementing both those principles once they have been firmly established?

Mr. Newton: I have said that there is widespread support for that principle, and that we shall seek to set out the ways in which it might be achieved—as well as its problems and obvious advantages—when we produce the document. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the British Government who signed the treaty of Rome.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will my right hon. Friend please congratulate my constituent, Mrs. Daisy Adams, who will celebrate her 111th birthday on Sunday and who has been drawing the pension for 51 years? Does my right hon. Friend agree that equality will be expensive, especially since it will mean bringing men's pensions up to the standard enjoyed by women in this country, who retire earlier and live much longer?

Mr. Newton: It is certainly true that at the moment women get a better deal out of most pension schemes than men. That is no doubt one reason why many men will actively support the idea of an equal pension age.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Further to his answer to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), how long does the Secretary of State envisage the consultation process taking once he is ready to send out the consultation document? Will he publish a list of the bodies

that he intends to consult, and will he accept suggestions about the women's organisations that he should add to that list? As this issue is of immense importance to millions of women and is so complex, a suitably long consultation period is vital to allow those organisations that will be involved in the consultation process to consult fully with their members.

Mr. Newton: I envisage a consultation or discussion period of some months, because anything less would be unrealistic. I shall try to remember to send the hon. Lady a list of the organisations that will be consulted when I have concocted one. It will certainly be extensive, and will include trade unions, employers' bodies, pensioners' organisations and, of course, women's organisations.

Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that British retirement ages and total pensioner incomes are among the most favourable in Europe? Can he further confirm that there has been a great improvement in the United Kingdom vis-a-vis Europe on total pensioner incomes since the Government were elected?

Mr. Newton: Yes, many people have recognised that the overall improvement in pensioners' net average incomes—to use the familiar phrase—has been considerable, and, indeed, greater than that for the rest of the population. However, as I always add when I have said that, we recognise that a fair number of pensioners do not have savings or occupational pensions, and we have sought to help them through improvements in income support.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I have not been able to call all the hon. Members who were rising, but we must now move on to the ten-minute Bill.

Abolition of Deer Hunting

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ban the hunting of deer with hounds; and for connected purposes.
It is with a sense of sadness that we recall the death of Eric Heffer earlier this year. He was a former vice-president of the League Against Cruel Sports. If he had lived, I am sure that he would have wanted to be a sponsor of the Bill, as someone who dedicated so much of his life to eliminating blood sports from Britain.
The past year has been unprecedented in parliamentary terms, in that a Bill to give greater protection to badgers has been passed into law and a Bill to ban hare coursing has reached its Committee stage. It is still being blocked by the snivelling behaviour of a few hunting Members of Parliament, who turn up on a Friday and grunt objection rather than stand up in the open and say why they are against banning hare coursing. Late last year, a momentous decision was taken through a ballot of the membership of the National Trust to ban deer hunting on National Trust land. Millions of people who support and welcome the general activities of the National Trust look to it to implement the decision of its members and ban hunting on its land.
The purpose of the Bill is short and simple. It is to make illegal in England and Wales the hunting of deer with dogs. At present it is perfectly legal—it happens with deer hounds around Britain—for a deer to be flushed out of the cover where it is hiding and to be chased by dogs and men for many hours and many miles. Sometimes deer are chased for as much as seven hours and up to 25 miles.
During that time, in the name of sport, and sport which is supported by some Members of Parliament who are here today, the animal is driven to exhaustion and fear. At that point, it is supposed to be dispatched with the aid of a gun in a humane manner. Many of the animals are not. They may escape to face death from their injuries and the mental stress that they suffered during the chase. [Interruption.] Conservative Members who find it so amusing are undoubtedly the same bloodthirsty louts who follow hunts on foot.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may not be unparliamentary, but it raises the temperature.

Mr. Corbyn: The matter that we are debating is a serious one, on which many people in Britain have strong opinions, as hon. Members who read their postbags will be well aware. I am describing the cruelty involved in hunting deer with hounds and killing them at the end of the chase. The deer are often torn apart alive by packs of dogs. Great cruelty is involved in such hunting.
Part of the weakness of our legislation is that the Protection of Animals Act 1911 does not protect animals from hunting. Therefore, separate pieces of legislation have to be introduced, as they were in Scotland in 1959, when deer hunting was effectively abolished there. Only culling and stalking are still allowed, which are not covered by the proposals in my Bill.
Hon. Members will be aware that there is overwhelming public support for this measure. They will also be aware that, every time that a Bill to abolish any blood sport has come before the House in the past few years, it has gained a great deal of support and has not been opposed. Yet every time a Bill reaches Committee stage or returns to the House on a Friday afternoon as part of private Members' procedure, it is objected to and Government Members, in a cowardly way, do not stand up and say why they object.
I hope that, on this occasion, the House will allow the Bill a Second Reading and that it will not be blocked at that stage but allowed to make further progress. It is said that, in opposing deer hunting and seeking its abolition, we are acting against the great traditions of the British countryside. I represent one of the most urban constituencies in the country, although I grew up in a rural area, and I believe that those who represent urban areas have as much right to speak on these matters as those who represent rural areas.
Claims that deer hunting is part of the great tradition of the British countryside are wholly fallacious. In the past, the same arguments could have been used for bear baiting, cock fighting, otter hunting, badger baiting and many other examples of cruelty to animals. The Bill seeks to pass a piece of humane legislation to stop a very small number of people enjoying a bloodthirsty activity that they call sport, which the majority of the population find revolting and which is clearly cruel to deer.
The time has come to pass such legislation. If it is not done in this Parliament by a private Member's Bill, I look to a future Parliament, when such legislation can and, I believe, will be passed in Government time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Ms. Mildred Gordon and Mr. Robin Corbett.

ABOLITION OF DEER HUNTING

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented a Bill to ban the hunting of deer with hounds; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 195.]

Points of Order

Mr. Tony Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. An important feature of this afternoon's debate is the revised draft treaty for the union of the 12 European Community states. Despite a question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last week, the Library obtained the draft treaty, which is 134 pages long, only at lunchtime today from a private, unattributable source. I understand that the Foreign Office was unable to obtain clearance from Brussels to place that document in the Library.
As guardian of this House, Mr. Speaker, will you please write to the President of the Commission, Mr. Delors, and inform him that this House is elected by the British people to form this country's Government? That is still the case, and if there are draft proposals to remove the power from this country to Brussels, will Mr. Delors kindly ensure that we hear about them as soon as possible?

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised that matter in the House last Thursday and, with his usual courtesy, the Leader of the House sent me a letter, which I received today, saying that the document would not be available. However it has been in the possession of the Foreign Office since 20 June, and plenty of time has been available for it to be translated, placed in the Library and made available to Members.
It is an insult to this House that the very meat and substance of today's debate, which affects this Parliament and the people of our country, should be denied to this House until a few hours before the debate takes place. Surely that must be changed. It is a matter to be decided not by Brussels but by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Mr. Tony Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the common practice of the House that, if an hon. Member or Minister refers to a document, that document must be laid? This is not the first time that this problem has arisen. In denying the House the document which is in his possession, the Foreign Secretary, not the Commission, is responsible for denying the House the information to which it is entitled by ancient right and practice.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In support of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), I would point out that the only document available earlier was one dated 3 May, the early draft of a treaty which was marked on the outside as a non-paper—that was not very encouraging to hon. Members. That was the only document we had to work on until 1.30 pm today, and it is intolerable to embark on a debate in which we all want to be as well informed as possible with such short notice and inadequate documents that are out of date and have been wildly revised.

Mr. Speaker: I do not underestimate the seriousness of what has been said to me, but it is not in order for me to communicate directly with Mr. Delors. I shall be meeting the Speaker of the European Parliament in due course and will doubtless raise the matter with him, but this is an issue for the Government, not the Chair. If documents are known to be available when debates are planned, they should be made available to the House so that we can have an informed debate, but, sadly, that is not a matter for me. Nevertheless, I hope that what I have said will have been heard by those responsible.

Mr. Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is in order for you, Mr. Speaker, to instruct the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a state paper.

Mr. Benn: I am sorry to return to this point, but with great respect, Mr. Speaker, it is an ancient practice of the House from time immemorial that, if a Minister refers to a document, the House must have it. This is an internal matter which has nothing to do with Mr. Delors. You are in a position to instruct the Foreign Secretary to make photocopies of the document available before the end of today's sitting.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the documents are now available, but before we have debates of such magnitude and importance, which are of great interest not only to hon. Members but to the whole country, we should have the relevant documents before us in good time.

European Community

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
[Relevant documents: White Paper on Developments in the European Community, July-December 1990 (Cm. 1457), the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 4 March 1991 describing the programme of the Commission for 1991, European Community document No. 5951/91 on free movement of workers between Spain and Portugal and the other member states, and the minutes of evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 12 June 1991 (HC 77-ii).]

Mr. Speaker: Before the Foreign Secretary begins his speech, I regret that, although I do not think that 10-minute speeches enhance such debates, because fewer than 49 right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate, I shall in fairness to them put a time limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm. I urge hon. Members called before then to bear that limit broadly in mind, in the interest of those who follow.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We are now about halfway through the negotiations in the two European intergovernmental conferences on economic and political union. We and our partners are planning on the basis that both conferences should reach a conclusion at Maastricht under the Dutch presidency. We are not seeking or expecting any delay in decisions beyond that point. Nor are we expecting a conclusion before then. It is natural to take stock at the meeting of Heads of Government in Luxembourg this weekend and now in this House of Commons. But I would ask the more breathless commentators to remember that the halfway mark is not the same thing as the finishing post.
There are many other important developments in the Community. For example, this year's agreement on farm prices respected both the interest of British farmers and budgetary disciplines. It provides a firm basis for the next state in achieving reform of the common agricultural policy.
Similarly, there has been good progress in negotiations between the European Community and the European Free Trade Association. When those are concluded—as we hope—they will extend the single market to 19 countries covering 370 million people. That will reaffirm that the European Community is outward looking and not an introspective, self-obsessed club.
It is perfectly true that the intergovernmental conferences are central to discussion at the present time. They raise again fundamental questions about what is the best shape and structure for Europe as we approach the 21st century. These issues were last tackled in the run-up to the signing of the Single European Act in 1985. I think that the changes that were made then worked well. It is unlikely that without them we could by now have completed almost 75 per cent. of the single market programme. I think that it was somewhat too soon to re-examine our structures and working methods. However, since last year most of our partners wished to do so, and we decided last year to take a full and positive part in both conferences.
I warmly welcome today's debate because it gives us a chance to grip reality. There has been something unreal about some parts of the recent public debate. I have felt

sometimes like a soldier in one of those wars recounted by Homer or Virgil. In those epics, the prosaic tasks of the soldier are suddenly interrupted by interventions from on high. Attention passes to the clash of fabled gods, or even goddesses, in the heavens above his head. Naturally and rightly, their thunder holds all our attention. But when the lightning and thunder of the great ones dies away, those of us on the ground have to get on with the work. Let me tell the House how we are getting on with that work and how we intend to carry out our responsibilities.
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will have more to say about the conference on economic and monetary union when he replies to the debate. I shall confine myself to a couple of general remarks about that, restating a familiar position.
The Government will not recommend to this Parliament acceptance of a commitment to a single currency. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear over the weekend, there are good reasons to be deeply sceptical about the feasibility of a move to monetary union at present. If, for example, it were to be attempted without substantial progress towards economic convergence, the economic costs would be substantial.
On the other hand, some years hence progress towards convergence might be more marked. A single currency might become feasible and might even have some attractions to consumers and markets. That was foreshadowed as a possibility in the hard ecu plan that we produced last year. In those circumstances, a British Parliament might wish to weigh up the political costs and opportunities of a move to a single currency in the light of economic experience. That is not something which we can prejudge either way today. It would be foolish, however, to close off that option from a future Parliament or to sit on our hands while the next stage of closer monetary and economic integration is planned.
In any case, quite apart from the question of a single currency, there is a good deal of advantage to Britain in achieving a stage 2 package that encourages convergence on low inflation and sound public finance across the Community. Through adopting a positive stance in the economic and monetary union negotiations, we have helped to focus negotiation on the next practical steps that should be taken towards closer economic and monetary integration. Indeed, it seems probable now that some form of hardened ecu will form an important element in stage 2. There is a great deal of work to be done during the discussions and a number of difficult and substantive issues remain unresolved. At Luxembourg, during the weekend, there will be an opportunity to take stock, but not to reach conclusions.
I shall concentrate on the discussions in the other conference—the one for which I am mainly responsible —on so-called political union. Some recent reports and some speeches by Opposition Members have portrayed us as a stag at bay in the manner of a Landseer painting. That is a romantic and not entirely unattractive image, but it is a wrong one. There are a number of proposals on the table that we shall sternly resist. We are by no means isolated in our views on most of them. Indeed, we have been steadily gaining ground on several of the issues that matter to us. In giving evidence recently to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, I outlined three of our key objectives. On all of them we are making some progress. The progress is not decisive, but some has been made.
First, we must achieve the right structure for the treaty. Those who favour the creation of a European state want to see all European co-operation ultimately channelled through the institutions established by the treaty of Rome. We do not accept such a model. It is necessary to have common institutions which are to some degree supranational, to develop and administer some common policies. As we have seen, that is true of the rules that govern the single market and its external manifestations in negotiations on world trade.
That logic does not apply in areas such as foreign and security policy or in the work of Interior or Justice Ministers. The treaty of Rome remains the bedrock of European integration, but there is nothing intrinsically more European about channelling all co-operation through the institutions of the Community rather than proceeding, where it makes sense, through co-operation between Governments directly accountable to national Parliaments.
That is why we favour a Europe in which separate pillars of co-operation are maintained, each reporting to the Heads of Government, sitting as the European Council. That is broadly the model on which the present draft treaty is based. Its proposal to keep intergovernmental co-operation and the institutions of the treaty of Rome separate is an important element in our idea of Europe. The text is not yet right, as many people have pointed out, and it needs further work to ensure that the pillars of co-operation really are separate. We shall press for that.
I shall elaborate a little on the point, as it has attracted so much attention in recent weeks. The subject of structure, or architecture, was discussed at the recent meeting of Foreign Ministers in Dresden. The President of the European Commission, Mr. Delors, criticised the presidency draft and sought to fuse the different pillars into one, but his approach was not accepted by ourselves or by the French and some others, and it has not been adopted by the presidency.
The recent appearance in the draft treaty of an aspiration to a "federal goal" is in effect an effort by the presidency to placate by rhetoric those who have not prevailed on the substance of the argument. Although we are happy, as in the past, to endorse the goal of an ever closer union, a commitment to a federal model, even as a distant aim, raises a different question, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday.
I cannot recognise some accounts of the previous discussion on this subject in which I took part in Luxembourg on 17 June. Having been there, I can say that there was no ambush, no heated exchange, no interruption. I explained—courteously, but, I hope, clearly—among other criticisms of the latest presidency draft, why we could not accept the phrase about a federal goal. It is true that the phrase means different things to different people, and that on the continent it often signifies the diffusion rather than the concentration of power.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: indicated assent.

Mr. Jim Sillars: indicated assent.

Mr. Hurd: It is interesting to see the Scottish Nationalist Members nodding their heads. The ambiguity of the phrase makes it a poor and dangerous phrase to

import into a text of such significance—and the nods of the Scottish Nationalist Members rather reinforce my feelings on that point.
In Luxembourg, when Mr. Delors's turn came round, he courteously but clearly stated a view opposite to mine. But I was not by any means alone in what I said, and the discussion continues.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend will recognise that I am one of the more sceptical members of the Conservative party and am deeply concerned about the ambitions of European institutions to take powers unnecessarily from the House.
I share my right hon. Friend's concern about federal ambitions and the existing European institutions taking over control—competence—with regard to defence, foreign policy, justice and immigration. But I—and, I suspect, many of my hon. Friends—find the proposals on a three-pillared approach that my right hon. Friend is putting before the House quite agreeable, and we would be happy to support them if he can bring them back to us at the end of the discussions on the treaty.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend The consensus is gaining ground. It already has the support of the Leader of the Opposition, so let us proceed in that constructive spirit.
The second objective relates to security—

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Foreign Secretary has touched on the nub of the matter—the word "federalism". I remind him that he had some harsh words to say about that after the Foreign Ministers meeting. It seemed that yesterday the Prime Minister took a much more conciliatory attitude towards the issue of federalism. He said that, if federalism was defined in terms entirely consistent with the only definition that I have seen in "The Oxford English Dictionary", and in terms that have already been accepted by all our European partners, it was acceptable to the Government. Is it not now the Government's position that, provided that federalism is defined in terms that have already proved acceptable to everybody else, it is acceptable to them?

Mr. Hurd: I have read carefully what the Prime Minister said. He was making exactly the same point as I am—that the word means different things to different poeple—and, I think, drawing the same conclusion, which is that, for precisely that reason, it is not very sensible to include the word in a treaty of this kind.
My second point concerns defence. Here, there is widespread agreement that Europe needs to do more, especially in tackling threats outside the NATO area. There was almost a consensus in the House in its analysis of the Gulf war that that was so. But in building up a European defence identity, we must not weaken NATO or confront the Americans with an exclusive European view. Because the Atlantic alliance and the presence of American and Canadian forces in Europe remain fundamental to our security, we want to strengthen the existing Western European Union, and make it, if we can, a bridge between NATO and the Twelve. We have made concrete proposals for achieving that, including the establishment of a European reaction force and the moving of WEU's headquarters to Brussels, alongside NATO.
Defence should not be embraced by the European Community, which includes neutral Ireland and which is likely—I hope—to include other neutral countries during the 1990s. We have made good progress within NATO and among the Twelve in establishing that any European defence identity must be distinct from the Community and must be complementary to NATO. That view was clearly accepted by our partners at the recent successful meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Copenhagen. It is not yet decisive progress, but we are getting on. If, in any new treaty, we can reconcile the need for greater European coherence in defence with the essential Atlantic foundations of that defence within the NATO area, it will be a substantial gain for the future.

Mr. Robert Adley: As my right hon. Friend is taking a cool look ahead, does he agree with me that even words such as "neutral" may not mean the same in 10 years' time as they have meant since 1945 and that, in considering the structure of Europe, even words such as "federal" do not cause some of us to lie awake at night—especially if they have the meaning that he has described?

Mr. Hurd: Nor me, Mr. Speaker, nor me. Equally, however, it is not very sensible to include at a key point in a document which we hope will last for some time a word that is clearly open to endless argument and interpretation.
Our third objective is to strengthen the rule of law within the Community. The Community is, and must remain, a community of law. The fairness and consistency with which that law is implemented and enforced are crucial for individuals and companies. There can be few hon. Members who have not received complaints from their constituents that, in one way or another, European decisions are implemented here but not elsewhere. We need a level playing field, and it is up to the Community to ensure that we have one.
At the conference, we have made several proposals to improve the workings of the institutions with that in mind. The most radical is the proposal to give the European Court of Justice power to impose fines when member states fail to comply with judgments by the Court. We have one of the best records for sticking to the rules. Between 1982 and 1989, for example, Britain was referred to the European Court of Justice for infringement proceedings 20 times, while Germany was referred 49 times, France 82 times and Italy 157 times.
Recent figures show one European Court of Justice judgment outstanding against Britain, compared with four against the Netherlands, six against France, 12 against Germany, 13 against Belgium and 37 against Italy. Establishing the primacy of the rule of law is a fundamental principle on both sides of the House, and in the country as a whole. Our proposals to that effect made little headway initially, but they have gathered considerable support, and are now included in the latest version of the draft treaty.
We want to encourage a more active role for national Parliaments in scrutinising Community legislation and co-ordinating their responses to it. We want to strengthen the hand of the European Parliament in overseeing the way in which the Commission spends European taxpayers' money; and we want to establish the principle of what, in the jargon, is called "subsidiarity".
That, too, is a confusing word, but it embraces a sound principle. It means the establishment of rules whereby decisions are made at the lowest practicable level. Centralisation is regarded as undesirable in almost all Community countries, and moves towards it do not become any more desirable if a "Euro" label is attached to them. We are working to devise a formula whereby action will be taken at Community level only if it cannot be taken effectively at national level.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that he has just defined federalism?

Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman consults all the commentaries, learned and unlearned, that have been produced in this country during the past two or three weeks, he will observe that the definitions of federalism are multiple and contradictory. Let me repeat that it is simply not sensible to use the word: that is why it has not been used up to now, and why the Community's founding fathers did not employ it. It has been brought in for the tactical purpose that I have described.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hurd: I will, but then I want to get on.

Mr. Dykes: Notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend has just said—quite rightly—did not the word "federal" appear in the 1950 Schuman declaration?
If we are proposing an increase in the European Parliament's supervision of, and powers over, the Commission, is it not somewhat illogical not to increase its powers over the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Hurd: I do not agree. The gap in democratic control does not apply to the Council of Ministers. [HON. MEMBERS: "It does."] What am I doing here? I am answering to the House for our performance at the Council of Ministers. But the Commission, and those who actually spend the European taxpayer's money as a result of Community decisions, are not subject to an equivalent examination. We want to divert the undoubted energies and ambitions of the European Parliament into an area that has been very important in the history of the House of Commons—not so much into extra legislative powers as into greater powers to assess, monitor and invigilate what the Commission does.

Dr. David Owen: The Foreign Secretary has defined the "three pillars". What is his attitude to subparagraph 2 of article J of the draft treaty, which allows qualified majority voting on nine suggested topics referred by the European Council? This is an over-arching of those three pillars which has serious implications for independent foreign policy-making.

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree; I am just coming to that aspect.
In negotiations such as those in which we are engaged, other member states have their objectives, too. The give and take of negotiation is getting under way. A number of suggestions are on the table, about which we are by no means persuaded. They include the issues to which the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has rightly drawn attention. They include proposals for enhancing the powers of the Commission, extensions in


qualified majority voting, which we believe to be unnecessary, a major increase in some areas of Community competence, a major increase in resource transfers to poorer member states, giving the European Parliament the right of co-decision over legislation, and commitments in the social field—which the Labour party favours but which we believe would destroy jobs.
Let me say a word about the social dimension. We accept the need for proper standards of social provision to underpin the single market. Indeed, we are the only country to have implemented all 18 directives in the social programme agreed up to the end of 1990. Most of the draft social directives on the table may ultimately be acceptable. As I said at Question Time, one of them was passed yesterday. However, we are not prepared to see Community competence spread into industrial relations.
For good or ill, traditions of collective bargaining in this country are very different from those on the continent. It is not necessary to have identical rules at Community level in this area. We do not intend to have our advances of the last decade—which, heaven knows, were hard won—thrown into confusion. Look at the number of disputes and strikes now, compared with the mid-1970s. Yes, there have been advances both in law and in practice. We do not intend to see them thrown away by an ill-judged attempt to force industrial relations practices throughout the Community into a straitjacket.
Community legislation in this area must not push up labour costs, thereby reducing the ability of European business to compete in world markets; nor should it work in such a way as to prevent economic convergence between the performance of the Community's richer and poorer states. It is interesting to note that it is this subject which invigorates the Labour party. It was the discovery of the social charter that acted as the excuse, I suppose, for the Labour party's most recent about-turn on Europe. The Labour party is now on its seventh policy on Europe. It supported membership in 1962, opposed it in 1964, supported it in 1966, opposed it in 1971, supported it again in 1975, opposed it yet again in 1983 and now, in 1991—although I have some difficulty in perceiving it—it appears to support membership once more.
By my reckoning, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has acted as midwife to, or has been present at, the birth of at least six of those seven policies. We are not talking about minor shifts of emphasis—nothing as modest as that. We are talking about a full 180 degree about-turn every time. I see that the right hon. Member for Gorton looks hale, hearty and full of bounce. I am certain that he has more policy reversals in him yet. It is rather important that the shifts and shuffles of the Labour party should continue to be conducted in opposition rather than in government.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hurd: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to get on a bit. [Interruption.] Let me finish this passage; then I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
I welcomed the extensive space devoted by a number of newspapers recently to the views of the Leader of the Opposition on economic and monetary union. They were carried in full. Extensive space was, indeed, needed. There

were many long words, but, when strung together, they amounted to nonsense. The truth of the matter is that the Labour party has no coherent policies on Europe. They are empty. The Labour party appears to be united only in its support for those Commission proposals in the social sphere that would undermine prosperity and destroy.
I commend the early-day motion on today's Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). He seems to have attracted a great deal of attention and support in a short time. I hope that my right hon. Friend's early-day motion will stimulate the right hon. Member for Gorton, when he rises to his feet, to enlighten us, at least partially, about what the Labour party's European policies really are.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Before the Foreign Secretary sorts out the Labour party, will he give us some guidance about what action is available to Her Majesty's Government if the Commission presents directives to change our industrial relations law, under majority voting under the Single European Act, which the Government think are wrong? What powers are available to the Government? What would they do if, as is likely, that happens next year?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that that is likely to happen next week. The events of yesterday in the Social Affairs Council bear that out. Where there is majority voting, we have found to a considerable extent, and certainly yesterday, that we have enough partners in this argument to block draft directives of which we disapprove. Where there is the need for unanimity, as again there was yesterday, we sometimes find that we need to oppose. We shall continue to do our best to sustain the policy and principles that I have outlined.
Having posed a few questions for the right hon. Member for Gorton to brood over, may I say a few words about the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and the Liberal Democrats? He is a joy to listen to on these occasions. He is always happier with his feet off the ground. Both at home and abroad, this is characteristic, and rather endearing. The Liberal Democrats love phrases, but they do not pause to examine what those phrases mean—federalism, a united states of Europe, a common defence policy.
"Those phrases sound jolly—let's go for them," the right hon. Gentleman says. He sounds energetic, lovely and lively when he says them—[Interruption.] The loveliness wears off after a bit, but the liveliness remains. These matters merit a little more examination than the right hon. Gentleman gives them. He would like us to leap cheerfully at every brightly coloured fly that dangles over the river, but some of these phrases have hooks in them. It is sometimes better to look before one leaps.
The European Council in Luxembourg this weekend will be but one step further in the negotiations. I should he surprised if the occasion were entirely serene. Summits of this kind, as is the nature of democratic debates, throw up some turbulence, but in the end the meeting next weekend will take stock and pave the way for decisions that will he taken later in the year, according to the timetable that I have described. We do not think it sensible to try to pick individual topics for decision at this stage. The package of measures, if we can reach agreement on it, will need to be seen as a whole. If that package is not acceptable to all member states, there will not be a new treaty. In those circumstances, the Community would continue as before.
However, we are working for agreement. There are a number of important prizes to be gained at these conferences. We want to see the Community move forward, but there is no possibility of Britain's being pushed into a new treaty that is repugnant to us.

Mr. Tony Benn: There is one decision that it is open to the Government to take by themselves—the decision about how this matter, when it is concluded, is to be implemented by Britain. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Government or the House has any moral or constitutional right to give away the powers of the electors without their being specifically consulted?
In that context, will the right hon. Gentleman remember that, whatever view he may take about the Labour party, the one thing that was clear from the beginning was that there should be an election or referendum before Britain entered? That point was embraced by the Labour party and endorsed by the public. We are discussing the rights of the electors. They cannot be handed away without their explicit consent.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman raised this matter at Question Time. I am strongly opposed to a referendum on this point. It is the responsibility of Parliament. I understand that there is to be a general election in this country some time during the next 12 months. It is not intended that any changes that are agreed as a result of these conferences will enter into effect before 1 January 1993.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I am sure that my right hon. Friend's welcome exposition of Government policy is persuading not only the House but the nation to support the Government's negotiating stance. Does he agree that, if we are to enhance the powers of the European Council, we should ensure that national Parliaments meet regularly and that those attending the European Council report to it as well as to their national Parliaments?

Mr. Hurd: I should like national Parliaments to find ways of working more closely together and of sharing experiences. It is not for the Government to lay that down, but if enough right hon. and hon. Members favour that approach, openings are available for them to take.
In the intergovernmental conferences, we are not seeking to form an axis with any other member state. We carry on conversations and dialogue with each of our partners and form different alliances on different topics. On defence, we have worked closely, for example, with the Dutch, Portuguese and, more recently, the Italians. On subsidiarity, we are working closely with the Germans. On the structure of the treaty, as we identified in Dunkirk on Monday, there is much common ground between ourselves and the French, and on institutional matters we share many views with the Danes and Irish. That means that we are contributing to debates not as outsiders but as full and confident members.
After 18 years of membership, the Community belongs to Britain as much as to any other member state. We have an idea of Europe that involves deepening existing co-operation and widening the Community to embrace new members. We will work for a Community that is outward-looking, that is liberal and that shoulders its fair share of international responsibility.
If successful, the two conferences will shape the Community's institutions for several years to come. Next year, the Community will have a fresh work load, and in the second half of the year will carry on its work under a British presidency. Next year, we shall have to tackle again the finances of the Community, including the next stage in the reform of the common agricultural policy. We shall also have to begin to consider how to handle the fresh applications for membership that, because of its success, the Community is attracting from a growing number of our European friends. We must find the right way of making them welcome. Those will be difficult tasks.
We are often asked to lift our eyes beyond the immediate work load. Indeed, we are sometimes criticised, and sometimes criticise ourselves, because we do not clearly define the final objective. I see us as the craftsmen rather than the visionaries of the Community. We tend to ask the awkward questions—"What does it mean? How does it fit into existing policies? What will it cost?" That is necessary—my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was rightly expert at it—but it does not mean that we lack imagination in thinking about the future.
We cannot dictate what our children will make of the Community, but I am sure that we must leave them in a position where they can effectively influence the shape of Europe. History would deal harshly with us if we retreated into some form of querulous isolation, worried always at the prospect of being outwitted by clever foreigners and acting always as a brake on the ideas of others without putting forward ideas of our own.
I have never believed that the Community was simply a free trade area. Of course we must complete the single market and defeat the protectionists. We must win the day against those who want to create a fortress Europe, which would separate us from north America, Japan, the east of Europe and the third world.
There is more to the Community than that. The first and essential achievement was political reconciliation between the countries of western Europe, whose history had been one of destruction and warfare. We have now moved ahead to the positive side of the political work. As Foreign Secretary, I see more clearly day by day the advantages of working jointly in foreign policy with our partners when we can agree a common line—for example, in our dealings with Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, in helping the emerging democracies of eastern Europe and in the Arab-Israel dispute. Divided, each of us individually would make a weaker impact than when we act together.
As the right hon. Member for Devonport said, common action must be based on agreement. I am not in favour of trying to achieve a mechanical or forced agreement through the use of majority voting in foreign policy. I am in favour of working more strenuously over a wider range of subjects to reach agreement, and then acting effectively together on that agreement.
That is my job, and it is also the job of some of my colleagues. We are only at the beginning of working together in Europe against international crime and environmental pollution. I foresee that work expanding steadily as the need and benefits become clearer sector by sector.
I am sure that that work should not be confined to a single framework simply because that was the framework chosen in 1957 by those who signed the treaty of Rome. What is crucial is not the machinery but the will to act. The


will to act together creates the habit of reaching agreement —sometimes after fierce discussion—which we see illustrated week by week in Council after Council. We are trying to reconcile the advantages of the Community with the strengths of the nation state. That is without precedent in the history of Europe, or indeed of the world, but it is in the interests of our country and of the Community that we should be full-hearted in that task. We shall persevere, and we have a good hope of success. I believe that that policy, which is forward looking and yet realistic, has the support of the great majority of hon. Members and of the great majority of our people.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman:: The House always feels more at peace after a speech by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. Today, we have been enlightened by cultural references to Homer and to Landseer. He made another reference to European culture when, with the profound question, "What am I doing here?", he alluded to Sartre's existentialism. At one point, the right hon. Gentleman daringly tipped a toe into party politics. Having listened to him for the past 37 minutes, it makes one wonder what all the fuss of the past few weeks has been about.
The Labour party will vote against the Government tonight to show our condemnation of their incompetence and bungling in the negotiations at the two intergovernmental conferences. Their failure to work out a clear negotiating line and to stick to it has already caused great damage to Britain's economy and industry and will cause greater damage as the year proceeds.
The Government are unable to take any other course because their main negotiations is not with our Community partners but with Conservative Members of Parliament. That is why, in breach of the precedents for these debates since 1983, there is no substantive motion before the House today, not even a take note motion. The Government fear that if a motion or amendment of substance were debated, the split in their ranks would show in the division Lobby.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: In a moment; let me proceed a little. That is why, when negotiating with his fellow foreign Ministers in Luxembourg last week, the Foreign Secretary is reported by The Daily Telegraph to have made an emotional plea. Mr. Boris Johnson, its European Community correspondent, said:
Mr. Hurd, Foreign Secretary, appealed to EC colleagues for the language to be toned down, at least during the present period of Conservative turmoil over Europe.

Mr. Aitken: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: When I reach the end of this passage.
The political editor of The Daily Telegraph, Mr. George Jones, said that the Foreign Secretary
is understood to have warned the German Chancellor that any attempt to force the pace could cause a serious split in the Conservative party in the run up to the General Election.

Mr. Aitken: I am fascinated by all this talk about splits. In that context, can the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) explain the Labour

party's attitude to a group of his colleagues known as the Common Market Safeguards Committee, which issued a statement claiming that
it would be bizarre to criticise the Government for saying no to federalism.
Is that the view of Opposition Front-Bench members?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman had better wait and see what I have to say about federalism. That will come a little later in my remarks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Today?"] Yes, certainly today.
The Foreign Secretary disclosed the tension that he felt in the comments reported by The Daily Telegraph. That tension has also been revealed in the list that the Foreign Secretary published of the videos that he has been buying recently for the Foreign Office. They include "The Dreaded Appraisal", "Stress", "This is Going to Hurt Me More Than it Hurts You", "Decisions, Decisions" and "Oh What the Hell (parts 1 and 2)". Only a few months ago—[Interruption.] I realise that things may be different for the Prime Minister who, according to the Daily Mail, watches video nasties featuring the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us make progress in an orderly fashion.

Mr. Kaufman: Only a few months ago, the Foreign Secretary felt able to take a much more relaxed view. When we debated these matters towards the end of last year, he told the House that there was
a great deal more light and sweetness on this side of the House than there was on the other side."—[Official Report, 8 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 153.]
Well, we have them both here this afternoon: light in the form of the right hon. Member for Finchley and sweetness in the form of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—or is it the other way round?
We are told that the right hon. Member for Finchley has a speech ready in her handbag. We very much look forward to hearing the right hon. Lady, who normally has a handbag in her speech.
The Prime Minister is in a position that would drive even a professional contortionist to despair. His two predecessors are in total disagreement with each other about the European Community. However, both assert that they support the present Prime Minister's policy on Europe.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Many of the hon. Members who are pointing across the Chamber want to participate in the debate. It will be difficult for me to call them if they continue to interrupt in that way.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does not the total absence of content in the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) show the absolute failure of the Labour party to evolve any policy on Europe?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman should wait a little longer and he will then receive an answer to his question.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is unequivocal on the subject of the European Community. In the Daily Mail last week, he said—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members jeer at articles by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. In that article, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was proud to


support the Prime Minister on the European Community. He said that he did that precisely because the right hon. Member for Finchley was at odds with the Prime Minister.
However, the right hon. Member for Finchley also supports the Prime Minister, although she expresses it in unusual terms. She says of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in the interview with David Frost to be broadcast tonight that "suddenly they're fighting staunchly". She sounds a little surprised, but she supports the present Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Talk about Europe."]. I am talking about the right hon. Member for Finchley and her views on Europe. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate is of great interest to the House and to a great many people outside who are listening to and watching us.

Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Member for Finchley said —[Interruption.]

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You must have noticed that the Leader of the Opposition cannot find a seat. Can it be that he wants to be near the door?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for me—[Interruption.] Order. Let us get on in an orderly fashion.

Mr. Kaufman: The Prime Minister is also absent from the debate. I thought that this debate was all about Parliament advising the Prime Minister about what he should be talking about in Luxembourg this weekend.
The two ex-Prime Ministers disagree with each other, while they both say that they agree with the present Prime Minister. The Prime Minister must decide which of the two who agree with him he agrees with. He cannot agree with both of them. If he repudiates one or the other, he splits part of his party away from him. That is why the Government's position is so equivocal that even his most sycophantic admirers in the press condemn it.
The Daily Telegraph this week stated that the Government's position was
cautious almost to the point of evasiveness.
A few days ago, The Times said that the Prime Minister was "dodging and weaving" and continued:
Mr. Major appears at present to have no clear position on the central determinant of British economic and foreign policy in the 1990s.
The Prime Minister's problem is that he has no alternative to the position that he has taken—

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious debate. Can you find someone who is capable of making a serious speech?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is indeed a serious debate. I therefore hope that we can listen to it and behave ourselves in a serious manner.

Mr. Kaufman: The curious thing that Conservative Members seem not to understand is that their organised disruption is not seen by television viewers and that their efforts, although rowdy and unruly, are making no impression outside the House whatsoever. It has always been significant that, when Conservative Members have their backs to the wall, they try to destroy debate in the House.
The Government have a basic problem in dealing with this issue. The Community does not know where the Government stand our own country does not know where the Government stand and the House does not know

where the Government stand, because the Government do not know where the Government stand. Neither past nor present members of the Government are consistent on the most fundamental matters. Not only do they not agree with each other, but they sometimes do not even agree with themselves.
Examine their position on the exchange rate mechanism. Interviewed by Brian Walden when she was still Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) supported the exchange rate mechanism and said:
I am very sure about it.
She said that twice to make it clear, yet, last week in New York, the right hon. Lady sang a very different tune. She said that Finance Ministers of countries in the exchange rate mechanism were
left like innocent bystanders at the scene of an accident.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked about that matter on Sunday, he said,
That's not quite how I might put it.
The Prime Minister had to repudiate the right hon. Lady, pointing out:
we entered the exchange rate mechanism last year when my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister".—[Official Report, 20 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 461.]
and saying that it was right to do so. The Prime Minister was forced to show his total disagreement with his predecessor, even though his predecessor says that she agrees with him.
Of course, beyond the exchange rate mechanism lies the question of the central bank and the single currency. On those matters the Government are in a total shambles. They cannot even agree on the time scale. The chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), said earlier this month:
Any decision on a single currency would not be put before Parliament for at least two years.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: Not at the moment, no. I would not want to interrupt the flow of the sedentary interruptions from the Conservative Benches.
The Chancellor said last week that the decision on a single currency was "years away". He specified the number of years not as the 10 of the chairman of the Conservative party, but as six, seven or eight. He put the decision even further off, saying:
seven, eight or 10 years' time.
It is no wonder that he and his colleagues wish to push the problem as far away as possible, for they have no idea at all what to do about it. For a while, they thought that a way of fending off the evil day was to confuse matters with their notion for a hard ecu. We hear little or nothing about that these days. The Foreign Secretary gave the hard ecu no more than a dismissive reference or two this afternoon. That is just as well, because none of them was at all clear about what would become of the hard ecu. The right hon. Member for Finchley, as Prime Minister, supported it because she thought that it was a barrier against a single currency. She said:
I do not believe that that formula could develop into a single currency."—[Official Report, 28 June 1990; Vol. 175, c. 493.]
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is to reply to the debate tonight, took a contrary view. He told the House of Lords Select Committee last year that the next


stage of having a single currency could happen more quickly by going down the path of the hard ecu. He confirms that today, therefore differing with his right hon. Friend. The Prime Minister himself came somewhere in between in a speech last year which launched the hard ecu. He said:
In the very long term, if peoples and Governments so choose, it could develop into a single currency.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. James Paice: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: Hon. Gentlemen have had their say sitting down. I do not see why I should give way to them.
Unlike the right hon. Lady, the Prime Minister turns out to have no problem with a single currency. The right hon. Lady last week warned that such a concept
would take the heart out of the purpose of our Parliament.
However, last week the Prime Minister, in an interview in The Daily Telegraph, said:
We accept the principle of a single currency.
That is what the Prime Minister said. That acceptance of a single currency by the Prime Minister has very wide implications. The Chancellor has made that clear. Last year, he said:
History does not provide many examples of a currency union without political union.
That was when he was addressing the Bruges Group. At that time the Chancellor was warning that a single currency meant acceptance of political union. [Interruption.] I am quoting the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to repudiate that.
The Prime Minister has said—

Mr. Tim Janman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I clearly heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he is not giving way. The hon. Gentleman who is rising is seeking to participate in this debate. I say to him again and to his hon. Friends that it will be very difficult to be called if they intervene as well.

Mr. Kaufman: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he warned that a single currency meant acceptance of political union. The Prime Minister has said that he accepts the principle of a single currency. It follows that he must accept the consequence foreshadowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is political union, so what is all the fuss about federation?
The answer is, of course, that it is a fuss for public consumption only, for the Prime Minister is very careful to state with the utmost boldness his firm and unequivocal opposition to propositions that no one whatever is putting forward. He says that he opposes an imposed single currency, when he knows that it is quite impossible for anyone to impose a single currency on an unwilling United Kingdom. He says that he rejects the idea of a federal superstate, when no one whatever is proposing a federal superstate.
Mr. Genscher, the German Foreign Minister, made that quite clear on Sunday when he said that, to him,

federalism means devolution of power to the lowest practical level of government and not the creation of a centralised superstate.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: The Prime Minister himself recognised that during his visit to—

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is supposed to be a debate on the immediate state of Europe. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to speak for more than 20 minutes and say absolutely nothing about what his policy is?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a parliamentary debate. The whole House knows that, in a debate, if a right hon. or hon. Member does not give way, the hon. Member who is seeking to intervene must then resume his seat.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a serious debate of this nature is not it reasonable to ask a group of Members who put themselves forward as an alternative Governmment to tell us where they stand on the most important policy of the day relating to Europe?

Mr. Speaker: When we get to the Back Benchers—if we get to the Back Benchers—no doubt we shall hear that —[Laughter.] Perhaps I phrased that rather badly. It was in no way a condemnation of the speech by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).

Mr. Kaufman: In thanking you for what you have just siad, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I should have been ready to give way to a number of Conservative Members, in the proper way in which civilised debate is conducted in the House—

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Gorton was addressing a remark to me.

Mr. Kaufman: If the Government Chief Whip had not made arrangements to stop a civilised debate taking place —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a House in which we have a tradition of civilised debate. I ask the House to allow the right hon. Gentleman to continue his speech and not to seek to interrupt him unless he is prepared to give way.

Mr. Kaufman: We know how these people operate, Mr. Speaker, and we have no intention of being intimidated by their hooligan tactics.

Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: indicated assent

Hon. Members: Hooray!

Mr. Beith: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Could he find a moment to say whether he is in favour of a single currency and whether he believes that a European central bank should enjoy independence in its responsibility for price stability?

Mr. Kaufman: If Conservative Members had remained silent, I should have come to those matters about 20


minutes ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] As it is, if they continue as they are doing I doubt whether I shall get there in another 20 minutes.
We were dealing with a question which an hon. Member put to me earlier—federalism. When he was in Dunkirk earlier this week, the Prime Minister recognised the problem about interpretation and the different definitions of federalism when he pointed out that the whole imbroglio about the word federalism boiled down to a question of definition. One of his spokesmen from No. 10 Downing street said, equally sensibly, at the weekend:
You cannot get hung up on the words of any particular area.
That is why it was a mistake for Mr. Poos to introduce the work federalism in Luxembourg. It creates an unnecessary row about a word when the nature of the political progress being put before the Community is much more important. That pointless row gave the Foreign Secretary the chance to seem what the right hon. Member for Finchley called "suddenly staunch". However, such phoney wars cannot go on indefinitely because, despite what the Chancellor says, decisions are not years but only months away.
The Prime Minister may have won some time this weekend and may win some more at the weekend in Luxembourg. He is seeeking to turn procrastination into policy. The headlines this week show that. The Guardian said:
Major wins time on Europe
and the Daily Telegraph said:
Major postpones the showdown.
If the showdown is postponed at Luxembourg, it will certainly come at Maastricht, which is only six months from now.
The Prime Minister had hoped to kick the whole problem into touch until after the general election. His bolt-hole has been the diplomacy of delay, but the Prime Minister has to get through this year, right through to Maastricht, almost certainly without a general election. Therefore, at Maastricht he will have to make decisions which could split his party wide open.
The Foreign Secretary has confessed the precise nature of Tory negotiating tactics. He said last week:
We are doing what Margaret Thatcher always did when she was Prime Minister—we are arguing, we are hoping to agree. She argued and then she agreed over and over again.
That tactic is not only undignified, but bad for Britain. Because the Government start out by opposing everything and then end up caving in about everything, they are not taken seriously when they oppose propositions which it is necessary and sensible to oppose.

Mr. Hurd: Not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman has made an imperfect quotation. When I said that my right hon. Friend and the Government agreed after arguing, I added:
when the result is a good one.
I do not know how else the right hon Gentleman thinks that one progressses in life; one argues, one makes a case and, if negotiations are successful and the result is acceptable, one agrees. How else does he intend to proceed?

Mr. Kaufman: The fact is that the Government have caved in on issues when they said that they would not. The right hon. Member for Finchley stated condition after condition for entry into the exchange rate mechanism, including reducing inflation. Yet the Government under her and with the present Prime Minister and the Foreign

Secretary went into the exchange rate mechanism when none of those conditions had been fulfilled. That is what is meant by arguing and arguing and then agreeing.
There are issues on which it is necessary for us to disagree strongly with propositions made by our Community partners. However, that disagreement is not taken seriously because it is only one of a whole range of disagreements. For example, at Luxembourg this weekend four major issues relating to political union will be discussed: a common foreign and defence policy; more powers to the European Parliament; extending majority voting on the Ministerial Council; and the social action programme. There is every reason to make progress in three of those areas, even if not to the extent being proposed.
If the United Kingdom delegation were able to do as the Opposition propose, and propose sensible ideas on the European Parliament, majority voting and the social charter, it would be heard with more respect and would have more chance of a response over the issue on which the Opposition believe that a stand should be made—the proposition for a common defence policy.
The Labour party is opposed to such a policy because it confuses the purpose of the European Community, it unnecessarily duplicates the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and it could act as an obstacle to the desirable accession to the Community of neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) asked whether the definition of neutrality had changed as a result of the cold war, but the fact is that the constitution of Switzerland requires that country to be neutral and it can be changed only by a referendum. These are very important matters. I believe that a firm no on a common defence policy would have a far better chance of success if it were not accompanied by a stubborn no on practically everything else.
It is the same with economic and monetary union. EMU will come. Indeed, the Government are committed to it. The right hon. Member for Finchley made that very point accurately when she was Prime Minister and she has made it since; the Foreign Secretary has also made it. We signed up for economic and monetary union 18 years ago. The question is not whether it will come, but how and when and under what conditions. If the right hon. Gentleman opts for the two-track approach—the Delors compromise—he will do grave damage to the country, perhaps for generations to come.
Last week, the right hon. Gentleman admitted to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that the United Kingdom cannot in the end stop our 11 partners going ahead with EMU if they are agreed among themselves. If the United Kingdom was to veto a treaty of the 12, the 11 could agree a treaty of their own, but in the event of a two-track approach, or of the other 11 going their own way without the United Kingdom, do the Government really believe that Britain could continue as before? Of course it could not. We would be affected in a myriad fundamental ways. In the end, we should probably have to accede to a structure that had been built without any regard for Britain's needs or wishes because we had not contributed to it.
In the 1950s and 1960s, President de Gaulle voted the applications for membership of the European Community made by Harold Macmillan and Harold Wilson until he had obtained a structure that suited him and what was


then the other five. When the United Kingdom joined, under the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, we had to accept a structure built to suit others, not to suit us. At least that predicament was not of the right hon. Gentleman's or the House's making, but if Britain is excluded from this next and crucial phase, it will be unable to blame anyone else. We shall have only ourselves to blame.
That is why the Labour party says that we should make positive proposals for political progress, and we have a list of such proposals. That is why the Labour party puts forward positive proposals on economic and monetary union and political accountability for the central bank. We have described in detail how that can be achieved and, what is more, we have potential allies in the Community to help us achieve it.
What is more, on convergence, which the Government rightly say is essential if we are to enter a central bank and consider a single currency, we do not merely have to wait for it to come about. The Labour party believes that we should make specific proposals to bring about convergence, including regional policies, structural policies and policies to combat unemployment. All those proposals are anathema to the Government.
I am not saying for a moment that everything that we proposed would be accepted. Everything that any country proposes never is—that is the way the Community works —but a positive contribution gets a positive response, and we would at least get some of what we wanted. That would be important for Britain and for the European Community. The Government, proposing nothing and opposing everything, will get nothing. The they will do what the Foreign Secretary has explained—they will argue and then agree over and over again. The reason is that the Government are fighting a rearguard action over the European Community. They have no idea of what they want and no vision of what can be achieved.
There are those in the House—certainly including myself—who have never been starry-eyed supporters of the European Community. Far from it. I have been a sceptic, but I can at least see that in a world where the United States, despite its problems, has a continental economy, in a world where Japan dominates international investment from the west coast of the United States right through to my constituency in Manchester, where we used to have a wholly British-owned computer manufacturer which has now been taken over by the Japanese because of the Government's destruction of the industrial sector, we are approaching an era in which the development of the Pacific rim and the huge giants of China and India will eventually come to play leading parts in the world economy. In those circumstances, a country such as Britain, which has great talents, skills and capabilities, but only a medium-sized economy, cannot hope to survive and prosper on its own.
I believe passionately in British sovereignty and in the sovereignty of this Parliament to which we have been elected. Indeed, I originaly opposed British membership of the European Community, not for economic reasons, but because of my fears for parliamentary sovereignty. I do not resile in any way from the position that I took or from the votes that I cast in the House and in the referendum, but unlike Conservative Members and unlike the right

hon. Member for Finchley, I know that I cannot wish away the developments of the European Community over the past 18 years.
Unlike the right hon. Member for Finchley, who did not pay much account to parliamentary democracy when she guillotined the Single European Act in the House, I have come to the view that a wider Europe need not sacrifice the basic prerogatives of a sovereign United Kingdom Government. The right hon. Lady's notions of sovereignty did not prevent sterling from being buffeted to the extent that a recession was regarded by her—wrongly —as the only sure protection for it. Sovereign Britain did not have a sovereign currency. The former Chancellor recognised that, even outside the exchange rate mechanism, the level of sterling was governed by what happened to the deutschmark. That, to my mind, is sovereignty in name, not in fact.
Today, this sovereign British Government are not in control of the economy—the economy is in control of the Government. Membership of the wider grouping on the proper terms can give a British Government greater freedom to pursue their own internal and distinctive economic and social policies. At present, the Government have the worst of two worlds. I want them to have the best of two worlds. European Community policies—provided that the United Kingdom Government contribute constructively to them—can strengthen Britain's freedom of internal policy and, therefore, Britain's sovereignty. A Labour Government will ensure that they do.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) started his speech by making it clear that his party would vote against the Government tonight. He gave no justification for that course of action. He and his hon. Friends know full well that the hand of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would be greatly strengthened in Luxembourg if he had a really good vote behind him when he goes there on Friday. I hope that many people—[Interruption.] Not only did the right hon. Member for Gorton give no justification for that course of action: he gave virtually no positive proposals whatsoever. At one time, he seemed to advocate a policy of perpetual disagreement in the Community; then, having complained about unemployment, he launched into an attack against Japanese investment in this country. Many people in this country are very grateful for Japanese investment.
May I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for his clear exposition and for the way in which he puts things? I noted that, at Luxembourg, we shall not reach conclusions, but he will, I think, be the first to agree that we can influence the way in which things go at Maastricht by the arguments and proposals that we make. My right hon. Friend made it very clear that one of the difficulties of discussing the matter of the Community is that it is riddled with jargon and Eurospeak, and that words are used which do not have a precise meaning, such as the word "subsidiarity". It is a vague term which raises far more questions than it answers. When we use those terms, we should be careful to define them.
I do not wish to speak for very long, Mr. Speaker, so may I therefore set the background, as I see it, to my


remarks and then raise five points that I hope my right hon. Friends will consider in their deliberations in Luxembourg?
The issues that we are debating today are fundamental to the future role of this Parliament, and deserve to be treated seriously. They are fundamental to the kind of Europe in which our children will live and they are fundamental to our future relationship with the wider world, especially the eastern European states and the United States of America. The fact itself that we are debating these issues reminds us of the cardinal principle of our system of government—that Ministers are directly answerable to Parliament and that the buck stops here.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has previously spoken eloquently of his wish to see Britain at the heart of Europe. He is right, and we have been. That is how we secured reform of the Community's finances. That is how we won reform of the common agricultural policy, although there is more to do, and that is how we started the creation of the single market. None of those things could have been achieved from the sidelines. We had to be in the midst of battle, and we were. We won many battles, and as we finished the battles, the position was far, far better for Britain than it was when we started. It is by staying in the centre that we can press the case for free trade through the general agreement on tariffs and trade and for reaching agreements with the countries of eastern Europe. My right hon. Friends have pursued those matters with vigour, and they are right to do so.
The summary of the documents for the forthcoming Luxembourg Council—I have not seen the full documents, because they came too late, and I share the views of those who protested that they were not available—reveals a quite different destiny for Europe from any that we were ever given to expect when we went in. They are proposals for a federal union. They call for a common foreign, security and, in due course, defence policy, in which majority voting would apply. They call for a great extension of Community powers and competence in energy, in health and over labour laws—again, often with majority voting.
We had some experience of the extension of majority voting in the Single European Act. I suggest that we are very careful before we consider extending majority voting any further. The fact is that majority voting means that we give the Community the right to impose on the British people laws with which the House—the elected representatives—may fundamentally disagree. That is a very, very serious step to take. The document also calls for a central bank to set monetary policy, leading to a single European currency. The Times has referred to all this as "supranationalism run riot". My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister declared in the House on 18 June:
A European super-state would not be acceptable to me or to the House—and in my judgment it would not be acceptable to the country".—[Official Report, 18 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 142.]
I wholeheartedly agree with both The Times and my right hon. Friend.
Few of us will forget what Mr. Delors told Members of the European Parliament in 1988. He said:
In 10 years time, 80 per cent. of economic legislation and perhaps even fiscal and social legislation will be of Community origin.
That is the road that he wants us to take, and it is the road that we must resist.
I understand that my right hon. Friends cannot reveal their full negotiating hand, but I hope that, in their negotiations in Luxembourg, they will keep in mind the following five points. First, the present debate in Europe touches issues more profound than any since the Community's foundation. It is of an entirely different order of magnitude and importance from the debate on the Single European Act. That made some important changes in the concept of majority voting to make it more difficult for countries that do not believe in free trade to block the completion of the Common Market. It repeated earlier commitments to economic and monetary union, while attempting to define it as only economic and monetary co-operation. What is now being considered is a massive extension of the Community's powers and competence into almost every area of our national life and that of other member states. It would be the greatest abdication of national and parliamentary sovereignty in our history.
Some people argue that the changes envisaged in the draft treaties on the table in Luxembourg would not happen for many years, so there is no need to worry. That is a very dangerous approach, because, once those powers were given away, they would never be given back. All the evidence indicates that, while our people want Britain to be actively involved in Europe—and of course, I was the Prime Minister who enabled the channel tunnel to get going, so I do believe in having more to do with Europe —our people do not want to see a massive extension of the powers of Brussels into every corner of national life even if it is dressed up as a step-by-step approach—a kind of federal Europe achieved by stealth. I fully support the firm stand that my right hon. Friends have taken— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Thatcher: I fully support the firm stand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have taken against any commitment to a federal Europe. I would hope that most people in the House were against a federal Europe; otherwise, what is the point of people standing as candidates at the next election—to come back here and propose to hand over all their powers as representatives of constituents to another Parliament?
The second point—[HON. MEMBERS: "The second point."] Thank you very much. The second point is that we should not let those who support a federal Europe pretend that they are somehow more European than the rest of us. They are not; they are just more federal. There is nothing specifically European about a federal structure—indeed, the opposite: it is the nation state which is European.
It has been the great achievement of the Community to bring about greater co-operation between those nation states—not to merge them. Instead of pouring distinctive nations into institutions and arrangements of the same mould, we should be encouraging different kinds and degrees of co-operation between European countries. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said as much in his speech on 31 May in Shropshire, and I heartily agree with him.
That sort of European co-operation is already developing—for example, in other European matters, France feels easiest with a different defence relationship with NATO than the rest of us, but in practice she


contributes in important ways to the west's defence. No one says that France is isolated—they accept the difference.
The Schengen group of countries have been able to reduce their frontier controls because of their common borders. We recognise that that would not do for us in Britain, because considerations of security and immigration are quite different for an island nation. But that does not mean that they cannot reduce their borders because all their geography indicates that. These different relationships make sense for those who participate, but they are not a model for everyone. The true Europeans are those who base themselves on Europe's history and traditions rather than on constitutional blueprints.
Thirdly, we should not for one moment fall for attempts to argue that a federal Europe would mean a devolution of powers. If that were the case, why change what we have at present? Powers are devolved, in that they are held by national Parliaments and Governments, as they should be. For Mr. Delors to say that his proposals would mean devolving powers is ridiculous. They are not his or the Community's to devolve.

Mr. Dykes: rose—[Interruption.]

Mrs. Thatcher: Our sovereignty—[Interruption.] I gave way— [Interruption.]

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Lady gave way, but the hon. Gentleman did not rise again.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mrs. Thatcher: May I continue? I understand that quite a lot of Privy Councillors want to speak.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order?

Mr. Hood: As I am sitting opposite the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), perhaps I may be of some help. The hon. Gentleman did stand up, but he was pulled down by a colleague sitting next to him.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know about things like that.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It is up to the right hon. Lady.

Mrs. Thatcher: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) might find it better to intervene when I have finished my next sentence.
Our sovereignty does not come from Brussels—it is ours by right and by heritage. We choose what we devolve to the Community—not the other way round.

Mr. Dykes: The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) was correct—I was pulled down by one of my colleagues—

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should be more robust.

Mr. Dykes: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if all this has delayed the House when there is pressure on time. I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. On the definition of federalism that she has just enunciated, does she agree that it was the American Secretary of State, James Baker, who said that devolution with common integrated structures was the definition of federalism?

Mrs. Thatcher: That is precisely why I made my point clear. Our sovereignty does not come from Brussels, and I hope that my hon. Friend is not arguing that is does. It is ours by right and by heritage. We choose what we devolve to the Community—not the other way round.
The fourth consideration which I hope my right hon. Friends will have in mind is the danger of being drawn along by what start out as vague commitments but end up as highly specific and damaging proposals. There is a much greater willingness in some European countries than in Britain to sign up to great rhetorical statements and declarations, without worring too much about what they will mean in practice; and it is welcome that, as some of the earlier declarations of intent have been committed to treaty language, a number of Governments—not just ours —have become more worried about the practical consequences. Such is the case with the social charter.
Moreover, some are now seeing that a single currency could not possibly work with the disparities between European economies as great as they are now—and that setting the goal of a single currency has no relevance to Europe's current economic problems. Moreover, to go to a single currency—

Mr. Robert Sheldon: rose—

Mrs. Thatcher: May I finish this section?
Moreover, to go to a single currency is not just a practical matter: it is a fundamental question of principle. It is not only a merger of currencies: it is to give up for all time the right of the Banks of England and of Scotland and our Treasury to issue our own currency, backed by our own economic policy, answerable to our own Parliament. That is why I do not believe in a single currency.
If, nevertheless, some other members of the European Community wish to agree to the idea of a single European currency—and not all of them belong to the exchange rate mechanism yet—they are entitled to go ahead and do so. Luxembourg is already linked to the Belgian franc, and the Dutch guilder is close to the deutschmark.
But unless legislation on a single currency were contained in a separate treaty, certain consequences could follow. I shall give three. First Britain, although not in a single currency herself, may be expected to contribute to the huge increases in structural funds required in order to allow the weaker member countries to participate in EMU.
Secondly, unforeseen consequences could arise as European Courts interpret the single currency provisions in the context of the full treaty of Rome.
Thirdly, there is no way in which the economies of the former communist states of eastern Europe could withstand the pressures placed on their fragile industries by a single currency—witness what has happened to eastern Germany.
We have to complete the transformation of the countries of eastern Europe into free enterprise


democracies, and enable them to join the European Community as soon as possible. They need an anchor to the west.
I shall give way now to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), before I come to my final point.

Mr. Sheldon: I agree with quite a lot of what the right hon. Lady has said about European monetary union. However, like many hon. Members, I have seen a number of the reports of what she is supposed to have said as well as those things she has actually said. I find it difficult to understand why the right hon. Lady accepted the exchange rate mechanism when she has said so many harsh things about it.

Mrs. Thatcher: The right hon. Gentleman and I can go into this, but it will take a few moments. First, I am fully in agreement with an exchange rate mechanism that is anchored to the deutschmark, because it is, in a way, like anchoring to the gold standard, provided that that is done at the right value. That is what we have done, and we have done it with a latitude of 6 per cent. That should be perfectly enough to accommodate any swings in the exchange rate.
It is if one moves to a single locked currency that one gets enormous difficulties, because there is no latitude to vary the currency. Therefore, any difficulties in the monetary or economic system have to go either to increased inflation or to increased recession and increased unemployment. The 6 per cent. swing gives us some latitude, but I believe that joining the exchange rate mechanism gave us all we needed for stiffening against inflation, and I do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to go any further into stages 2 or 3— [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked me a straight question and, as always over the past 31 years, I have given him a straight answer.
Finally, looking beyond the borders of the European Community, we have to strengthen and develop Europe's trade with the United States and the rest of north America, Canada and Mexico, perhaps through moves to a transatlantic free trade area. Further, the European nations have to encourage the Soviet Union and its constituent republics as they struggle along the path of reform.
We shall not achieve any of that if we accept a centralised, inward-looking European community. In both Luxembourg and Maastricht, we must speak out and reach out to the wider world. In my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister we have a leader with the vision and sense of purpose to do just that. I wish my right hon. Friends well in their great task, and I give them my full support.

6 pm

Sir Russell Johnston: I shall not spend a long time on the speech made by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) because I suspect that other hon. Members will do so. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman wait a moment? Would hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly, please?

Sir Russell Johnston: I shall simply remind the right hon. Lady of two short quotations. The first is:

Periodic expressions of pessimism about the future of the Community have never turned out to be justified. Europe needs to advance its internal development. The progress that has been made towards 'an ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe' of which the Treaty of Rome speaks ‖ is unlikely to be reversed.
The second quotation is shorter:
It must be our objective to aim beyond the Common Commercial Policy through Political Cooperation towards a common approach to external affairs. Such a policy can only be achieved progressively: it must nevertheless be the aim before us.
That quotation was from the declaration of Fontainebleau made by the right hon. Member for Finchley in July 1984. Certainly to my ears the right hon. Lady's position now, as expressed today and in recent days when she has made some remarks, is in tone and attitude very different. It is much more negative and much more—dare I say it—nationalist.
Why are we talking about political union in Europe? It is because we are doing more and more things together, in our economies, in agriculture, transport, the environment and many other areas. We need to find some way of regulating those activities in a democractic fashion. Unlike the Foreign Secretary, whose remarks I shall come to, Liberal Democrats do not accept that such regulation is felicitously achieved through the Council of Ministers. We are far from being the only people who take that view.
It is right that the word "federal" should be at the heart of the argument. I am astonished at the notion that no one in Britain knows what the word "federal" means and that it means something different in those funny continental countries. Have we forgotten that we gave federal systems to Australia, Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany? Why did we give a federal system to the Republic of Germany? It was in order that Germany would be a decentralised country. Now we are claiming that we do not know the meaning of the word. The argument about Scotland's government appears to have passed the House by. People seem to have forgotten that the argument was between independence, the status quo and a federal solution of some nature.
My dictionary says that federal means "founded upon mutual agreement"—that is a good start—and
a union or government in which several states, while independent in home affairs, combine for national or general purposes".
That is exactly what we seek to do—to combine for certain purposes.
The Foreign Secretary attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)—perhaps attack is a little strong. He tapped him with a paper napkin and said that my right hon. Friend was guilty of deploying line phrases. I have never noticed it myself—[Laughter.] The Foreign Secretary said that my right hon. Friend did not entirely understand those fine phrases. Let me quote some fine phrases to the Foreign Secretary.
Thinking as a European and being firmly rooted in one's own native soil,"—
that would appeal to the right hon. Member for Finchley—
I am convinced that in order to succeed, Europe will have to learn to live by the motto of 'Unity in Diversity' … (it) is in fact a very sound and pragmatic structural principle of the sort of federal system we have in mind for Europe. Europe will be a federal Europe—it will not be a unitary Europe.
That was from a speech made by Chancellor Helmut Kohl in Edinburgh on 27 May this year when he accepted a doctorate in that university. I do not think that the good


burghers of Edinburgh were astonished at the use of the word or found it incomprehensible. On the contrary, they knew exactly what it meant.
The Liberal Democrat argument is that federalism is about more democracy, not less. The difference between us and the Government is that the Government, as the Foreign Secretary said, think of an intergovernmental Europe in which the Governments parley, debate and deal. We think of a citizens' Europe in which individuals in each of our Community countries have a direct voice in what happens through the European Parliament. Federalism is about limiting central power.

Mr. Sillars: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? I seek a genuine clarification.

Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is always genuine. Carry on. Hurry up.

Mr. Sillars: The hon. Gentleman is usually more courteous. He explained that he is talking about power expressed by the peoples of Europe in a European Parliament. Does that also imply a European Government, which is the Executive of that Parliament?

Sir Russell Johnston: In time, it will. None of us knows exactly what shape that will take, but in the present circumstances we are dealing with the existing institutions —the Parliament, the Council and the Commission. There may be a time long hence, when we shall have some sort of "Europe des regions." I was most attracted by that idea, but it will not be realised overnight.
The point that I was about to make is worth stressing for the benefit of the right hon. Member for Finchley. She attacks federalism as some sort of centralising concept, which is the opposite of what it is. It must be said that, during the past 10 years, centralisation within the United Kingdom has dramatically increased. Local government has been weakened. There has been no attempt to establish regional centres of power in England and no recognition of the aspirations of the Scots and the Welsh to some sort of self-government. I aver that the Conservatives have been complaining about centralisation abroad while practising it at home.

Mr. John Gorst: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect and perhaps comment on the news that we are receiving from Yugoslavia, which is facing the problems of federation when the republics would prefer confederation, which is a looser arrangement? Will he also reflect on the growing difficulties of the Soviet Union? The problem there is that when disparate peoples have been brought together too closely they do not necessarily work harmoniously together.

Sir Russell Johnston: I hesitate to cogitate for too long, because many hon. Members wish to speak, but I shall lance that argument straight away. In the case of both the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, centralised power was artificially imposed by dictatorial force. I accept that in the Soviet Union there was a mirage of federalism, but it did not exist in reality. There was a little more reality in Yugoslavia, but nothing like enough to appease the feelings of the Slovenes or Croatians. In the European Community, we are talking about people coming together

willingly because of the impetus of the economy to decide how things that must be done together should best be done to benefit everyone.
People continually say that no one makes the position clear. We are quite clear that we want the European Parliament to be strengthened and given powers of co-decision with the Council. We also want it to be elected under a common, fair, proportional system. I am tired of people prating and pomping about democracy when one considers how unrepresentative the House of Commons is. I want discussions in the Council to be open. It is in the interests of the United Kingdom, Germany and France to work for common foreign and defence policies.
The advantages of monetary union to individual citizens and our industries are clear. First, it will make trade and cross-border capital flows easier as barriers to trade are reduced and currency fluctuations ended. A single currency is the logical next step from a single market, as was said by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), whose long, trenchant and honourable defence of the Community I salute.

Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Russell Johnston: It is not that I do not like to give way, but time is pressing and I do not wish to give way too often.
Businesses are looking for stability and the capacity to project price, which this will give them. Secondly, monetary union will give the British economy the balance of a sustained counter-inflation policy that it has long been denied. We are not only not afraid of an independent central bank—the Labour Front Bench indisputably is —but we welcome it. We should be only too pleased to follow the example of the Bundesbank model because it works. Neither do we think that the Bundesbank will somehow totally extricate itself from the democratic system. On the contrary, one saw that in Kohl's decision to override Pohl on the unification problem. It was an institution committed to price stability.
Finally, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Finchley said, this is good news for the central and eastern European countries that have come to democracy. In the United States the right hon. Lady spoke about "a wealth wall" being built between the European Community and the new democracies. With respect, that is nonsense. Her argument exploits the new freedoms in the east to block further progress in the west.
I accept that Europe does not end with the European Community, but the new Europe begins with the European Community. The new democracies want us to succeed. They want a dependable currency to which they can relate. They would prefer that to be the ecu rather than the deutschmark and we should be pleased that the Germans want that, too. That will be possible because Germany takes not an aggressive but a co-operative view. In nightmares, I sometimes wonder what it would be like if the right hon. Member for Finchley had been Chancellor of Germany.
The European debate should be less about the power of nations, because the nation state has brought much blood to the European continent. The nation state in terms of the old concepts of sovereignty has seen its day. I want a Community that lives in the minds of its citizens. I accept that, of necessity, the Community will set certain parameters, frameworks, minimum standards and rights


for trading relations, fair competition and minimum entitlements in the social sense, and will provide opportunity through the regional and social funds and rights before the law. However, in my view it will not suck in more and more power but will be a group of people seeking a Europe that will not only benefit its own citizens but will make a remarkable contribution to the democracy of all the world.

Mr. Edward Heath: I felt sad that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) attempted to turn a motion on the Adjournment—intended to be an open discussion of probably the most serious problem facing us at the moment—into a party issue, particularly one of personalities. It was unlike him, and he probably regrets it. I am saddened even more by the Opposition's decision to vote against the Adjournment motion tonight. It is unusual in this House to vote against an Adjournment motion, and it will be taken by all the Labour party's friends in the European Community as another change in the Labour party's position and as being against the views expressed by the Prime Minister. Again, that is a matter for regret.
It is 41 years to the day, the hour and almost the minute since I rose, at 6.12, to make my maiden speech urging the then Labour Government to participate in discussions on the formation of the first European Community. I spoke then for 14 minutes. It think, Mr. Speaker, that you would adjure me that, without interruption—I had no interruptions then—I should take only the same time, and I shall therefore endeavour to do so.
Why did the then Labour Government refuse to take part in those discussions, to which they were invited by Jean Monnet and the six other countries that had agreed to take part? Their reason, amongst others, was that there was no definition of a Community. The answer to that was, "No, but we shall work together to produce the definition of a Community," and that is precisely what they did.
We are now in exactly the same position over the political developments of the Community. The Prime Minister has been absolutely right to try to dissuade us from entering a long artificial and sometimes bitter argument about federalism, because what we are invited to do, and what the Foreign Secretary will do, is discuss the political organisation, how it should be built up, and what its powers and effectiveness should be. We should accept that immediately and not say, "Yes, but what will the end be?" The purpose of the operation is for us to take part in defining and creating the end. That is how the Community works.
The Foreign Secretary rightly said that, after this debate, his job is to get down to that work. He will recall the work on the Community negotiations that was carried out from 1970 to 1974, when he was with me. Time and again, in the 1960s, in our first negotiations and again in the 1970s, the political leaders in the Community said, "We just do not understand how you can carry on a negotiation and, on every occasion, have to return to the House of Commons to read a long detailed report, be subjected to 45 minutes or an hour's questioning and be pressed from all sides to give solemn undertakings about particular aspects of it." That is absolutely true.
Therefore, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will never be either surprised, or ashamed of saying, "This is a matter with which we are dealing, and I shall not be bound absolutely by the words that I say now." If he did not say that, we would have no freedom for negotiation and no ability to persuade, hopefully successfully, other people to share our views.
We are in the same position as we were in 1950 over the future developments of political unity, foreign policy and defence policy. As the then Labour Government refused to participate, it took us 22 years before we became a member of the Community. We must never make that mistake again. We cannot afford to do so, whether in relation to monetary or foreign or defence policy or political union. We can see how such developments are already taking place in Europe, and I beg my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister not to take the view that, in order to satisfy some part of opinion, they must say no to begin with, drag out the process and finally accept that the other 11 want it. That would not give us a status in the Community that we could later use for other purposes, but it would make the jobs of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary infinitely more difficult than they would otherwise be.
All the signs are that, certainly across the Community and to a considerable extent in this country, people are not as worried about federalism as apparently we are in the House. We gave federalism to Canada, Australia, Nigeria, India and a large number of colonies which wanted their independence—[HON. MEMBERS: "They were not colonies."] A number of them were colonies. Why do we think that not only the word "federalism" but that system of government is so horrible? The Community is responsible for working out what form of government there will be.
Sovereignty exists to be used for the benefit of the people, not for the satisfaction of Governments or politicians. Unfortunately, for many centuries sovereignty was used to wage war in Europe against other countries. That era is over, thank God. When the second world war was over, those of us who survived were determined to prevent it happening again. That was the origin of the creation of the Community. It was Churchill who, in 1940, first stated in his proposal to France that we would become one country and one nation, and it would be an indissoluble unity. Future unity will be discussed at the end of the year. Ever closer unity is set out in the treaty that we signed and fully accepted.

Sir John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Heath: No, I am sorry. I am trying to stick to Mr. Speaker's request that our speeches should be as short as possible, because 49 hon. Members wish to speak. Otherwise, I would gladly give way to my hon. Friend, who was a great Oxford friend. However, if I give way once, I shall have to give way again.
Every member of my Cabinet agreed to ever closer unity for the whole of the Community.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Every member?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman interrupted earlier, and said that it was the Whip that achieved that agreement, but we had a free vote. It was the Labour party which used the Whip that night, but 72 of its Members defied it, and we won with a majority of 112.
On the subject of monetary policy, I am sure that entering the exchange rate mechanism was absolutely right and is still right. I regret that we did not do so five years earlier, but that is history. Economic monetary union must come as soon as possible, and with it the single currency. Industry wants the single currency, and we must pay attention to the requests and demands of industry.

Mr. Bob Cryer: No request from the manufacturing and textile industry.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman may believe that, but the view of industry as a whole throughout the country is that it wants a single currency, as it will facilitate its activities, give it greater opportunities and lower costs. It is important for the whole country that, when we have a single currency, we shall for the first time bring home to everyone—manager and worker—exactly what the relative position is of the goods produced in each of the Community's member countries. That message will be brought home to everyone in this country and will lead us to make the various necessary changes to compete effectively and get our balance of payments in order. That is a vital aspect of the single currency.
Some of my constituents ask me about the royal family and the Queen's head. There are eight royal families in the Community and it would be perfectly possible to make arrangements for a single currency and coinage on which all eight royal families could be represented. It is also interesting that it was not until 1960 that the Queen's head appeared on this country's bank notes, so those that use that factor as a major argument should remember that it is a new development for us.
A common foreign and defence policy is bound to come, and we have already had attempts at a common foreign policy. Foreign and military problems over the Gulf showed that it was impossible to have a common policy, but that it was necessary to have one. It was because other countries had different judgments about interests in the Gulf that such problems arose. It is now essential that the problems of each part of the world should be thrashed out in a common foreign policy produced by Community members.
We should also have a common defence policy. 1 hear talk about a bridge between Europe and the United States. We do not require a bridge; we are together in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, along with Canada. What is required is that Europe should take a greater share of defence responsibility and work out its own common policy. I know that some people who have held high positions in the defence sphere do not accept that view, but it is consistently put forward. An attempt was made to implement that policy 30 years ago, but, because of France, it was unsuccessful.
However, we can now make a successful attempt in the knowledge that the relationship between the defence policies of France and Germany is closer than ever before. If we are to have a common defence policy, we must have the political institutions to deal with it, and that is the next stage on which the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will be engaged. I am sure that they will handle it extremely well.
We have already given up a large part of our sovereignty to NATO—an attack on one member is an

attack on all. We do not have time to say, "We do not accept this; we do not want our sovereignty affected." We have given up our sovereignty in that respect. We have pooled our sovereignty within the Community, other countries share it with us, and we share theirs. That process will inevitably continue and will become more and more satisfactory because it will benefit the people of this country, which must be our main purpose.
Why are Sweden and Austria applying to become Community members? They are already in a free trade area, and they know that the Community is infinitely better than that. That was why we applied to enter the Community. We created the free trade area in 1958 when we were not prepared to take the decision to enter the Community, but by 1961 we realised that it was not the answer. That is when we had to have first arrangements for negotiations. Sweden, rather unexpectedly, and Austria are both applying to be full members of the Community. That is because they like the Community and realise that a free trade area does not satisfy them.
As for the defence consideration, I believe that Austria's position is changing. We have sometimes said that Austria is bound to neutrality by the four-power treaty of 1955, but that is not correct, as Austria is now saying. It made a statement that it would be neutral, but that is all. Austria itself can change that. If it became a member of a Community with a defence policy, I believe that it would want to be involved in that policy.
The position of Eire is also changing. It said that it would never become part of a defence policy which was Atlantic, but a European defence policy is different. I believe that Sweden, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, will also be prepared to consider its position. If Sweden and Austria are to be full members of the Community, we will naturally expect them to take a full part in the foreign and defence policies of the Community.
We can encourage the countries of central Europe by our investment and our technology, and by being careful to ensure that they are not in a position in which they can say that there is an attempted takeover by the capitalism of the west, which is in their minds. We must recognise that it will take them time to come up to the level that we in the Community have reached. There is nothing selfish about that. There is no question of our using our wealth to keep them out. West Germany is pouring wealth into what was East Germany to try to bring that area up to the required level. What was West Germany acted on currency even before the unification of what were the two countries. The currencies were unified. That is exactly what Erhard did when he took over as Minister of Finance under Adenauer in what was then West Germany. The Germans should have our admiration for what they have done in what was East Germany.
After 40 years of repression in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria, leaving aside Romania for the moment, and inactivity in the industries of those countries, it will take them a considerable time, however hard they try and however much we help, before they can be on a comparable basis with the members of the Community.
I have stated before the cases of Spain and Portugal. After the two dictators died, it took those countries 10 years before they were able to say to the Community, "We are now in a position when we can become a full member." They were right. The position of Spain, however, was infinitely stronger than that of any of the eastern European countries now. Under Franco, Spain developed a strong


middle class, which was trained administratively, financially and technically. The members of that middle class took over and ran Spain, and they were backed by a powerful king who put down the first attempt at rebellion. None the less, 10 years passed before Spain could present itself as a full member of the Community.
Central and eastern European countries are realising the problems that they are up against. If they were to become full members of the Community now, notwithstanding 1992 and the removal of all barriers, they would be swept off the face of Europe. There is nothing that the present members of the Community would want to buy from them. There are no services that we require from them. However, they, knowing what we have, would want it. That is natural. The process is bound to take time, and it must be handled carefully by us in the west. The Community is using its resources to help the countries of central and eastern Europe in the process, and rightly so.
When the Community began in 1950, it was unique in many ways in world history. That is also true of its institutions. We, the countries of the Community are sui generis. There has never been anything like us before and there is nothing like us anywhere in the world. We shall continue to be sui generis in the developments which my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will work out.
The United Kingdom made a unique decision of immense historical importance when it decided to go into the Community in 1972. The decisions that will be taken at the end of the year will similarly be of immense importance for the future of the Community, for our country and for future generations. We shall benefit from the continued development of the Community as a community, and that should be our purpose.

Mr. Denis Healey: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and I have lived through the events that we are discussing this evening for 50 years. I now share his view that Britain made a great mistake in not involving itself in the negotiations that took place in 1950 and in the years that followed. As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, the Conservative leadership took exactly the same view as the previous Labour leadership when it took power, and it took 10 years to change its mind. I agree also with what he said later about the importance of Britain playing a constructive and, to some extent, visionary role in the Community. It struck me that he used words similar to those which were employed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
These are not necessarily party issues, but, inevitably, party politics sometimes becomes mixed up with them. Almost all the speeches that have been made so far have disappointed me, if I may say so, because they have ignored the most important economic and political events of recent years. Changes in each of those sectors is already having a major impact on the way in which the Community will develop in future, and that will continue.
It has not been mentioned that information technology, combined with the abolition of exchange controls, has robbed all countries which have abolished exchange controls and have information technology of economic sovereignty. Money is now managed by a mafia of young lemmings, who send 20 times as much money across the

foreign exchanges in search of speculative gain as is required to finance world trade in both services and industry. The young men on the financial markets determine exchange rates, and through exchange rates they determine interest rates. Through both, they determine inflation and growth in all countries. That makes most of the argument about economic and monetary union almost irrelevant to the real world.
I note that the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) shakes his head. I well remember that in the middle of the Conservative party conference in 1989 he was compelled to increase British interest rates—that was before we joined the ERM—within 40 minutes of the Bundesbank raising German interest rates, after spending £2,000 million of our reserves trying to delay the increase until at least the conference was over. So much for sovereignty. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is now nodding in agreement. I described exactly what happened.
These developments have had an enormous effect on how the exchange rate mechanism works. It is bizarre that in recent years the currencies which under the old system would have been weakest as a result of high inflation and a bad balance of payments, such as those of Britain, Spain and Italy, have found their currencies at the top of the grid. The country with the best economic performance, the lowest rate of inflation and the highest rate of growth—Germany—has often found its currency at the bottom of the currency grid.
One lesson that can be derived from these events is that we cannot leave such massive issues at the mercy of markets that can behave so perversely. They produced the crash of Black October, and they have produced similar results in many parts of the world in the past 12 months. However, no Government on their own can buck markets, not even a Government who are a member of the ERM. Capital flows across the exchanges every day are six times larger than the foreign reserves of all the countries in the ERM, so the scope for managing exchange rates through intervention is limited.
I do not have time even to sketch the way in which I think that a group of countries working together could influence markets for the better. I am certain, however, that it will be essential for Britain, with other members of the Community, to pay attention to the problems to which I have drawn attention rather than to the many abstract problems that fall within the present agenda for economic and monetary union which, in my view, will lead to them wasting their time. I also believe that the Community must address the social consequences of its economic actions. It is ridiculous that the Community is not prepared to develop a common social policy to meet the consequences of the economic and financial changes that it introduces.
The other great change that has taken place is much more recent. The change in the financial system is about 10 years old now, but the other big change—the end of the cold war—began in 1989 and was formally ratified by the proponents of the cold war at a conference less than a year ago in Europe.
The end of the cold war has produced an explosion of nationalism on both sides of what used to be the iron curtain. The interesting lesson that we can learn from that is that the federation of separate nation states has not been able to withstand those nationalist forces. All the existing international federations are now breaking down or are under great strain—the Soviet federation, the Yugoslav


federation and the Czechoslovakian federation. Even the Canadian federation is threatened with the secession of Quebec, which is asking for a referendum such as that which the Croatians and the Slovenes have just held in Yugoslavia.
Britain should recognise that fact as much as any country should, because, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup pointed out, at one time we were the great federateurs. We created the West Indian federation, which broke down under disagreements between the islands concerned. We created the central African federation, which broke down for similar reasons. The Nigerian federation is not a good example because it had to be established by the bloody civil war over Biafra.
It is worth reminding ourselves that even the American federation, which is not international but was composed of small bodies of colonists—at that time, they were all from Britain—required the bloodiest war in which America has ever been engaged to settle its internal problems. More people were killed in the American civil war than in all the wars that have followed, up to and including the Gulf war, yet it took place when the United States had only one seventh of its present population. Even the Swiss federation, which has been cited today, was established after a civil war between its existing states and the so-called Sonderbund, in 1847.
With respect to those who believe, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) appears to, that a federal superstate is an answer to the problems of nationalism in the modern world, such a belief flies in the face not only of history but of recent experience. On that matter I find myself unwillingly agreeing with the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—it was the only thing in the right hon. Lady's speech with which I did agree—[HoN. MEMBERS: "What about Germany?"] The German federation was imposed by the victors on a vanquished Germany to prevent it from having central power. That federation should not be used as an analogy for anything that might happen in Europe. It is quite different. The analogy would be if it were decided to break Britain up into a federal state giving separate representation to Yorkshire, the west country—that prospect would please the Liberal Democrats—Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. That would not be especially desirable.
It is essential that the world must find new forms of political relationship which respect the undoubted force of nationalism—nationalism is by far the strongest single force in world affairs—yet which would not allow the nation state that was so praised by the right hon. Member for Finchley to produce war on an ever-increasing scale, as it has done continually since it came into existence at the end of the 18th century. The nation state is quite a recent product—there were different sorts of states before that. Even in its present form, the European Community has at least done that. War between its members, who have so often fought one another in the past, is now absolutely unthinkable. Nevertheless, taking the problems of recent federations into account, we must be cautious, as the Government rightly are, in moving further in that direction.
The most important issue that we face today is that of enlarging the Community. Membership of the Community

is the best and only hope for the east European countries to make the necessary transition to stable democracies and prosperous market economies. If they fail to make that transition, the consequences for western Europe could be cataclysmic. Tens of millions of impoverished and desperate people would flood across the frontiers into western Europe, as they did into western Germany before unification. For that reason I believe that widening the Community must take precedence, if necessary—if there is a choice—over deepening it.
Of course, I believe that all the European Free Trade Association countries that wish to do so—as I believe that they all will, once Austria and Sweden have joined—will come in as well. We shall have a completely different sort of Community, in which most of the arguments that we have exchanged in the House today will be totally irrelevant.
I regret that Britain is not bringing those issues before the public at present. The Foreign Secretary did not do so in his speech today. Too often, Britain's behaviour seems to have justified the judgment of the Quai d'Orsay—the French Foreign Office—which called us
hesitant in action, maladroit in execution and infirm of purpose when it counted.
I reassure the Foreign Secretary that those words were used to describe a previous Conservative Government after the Suez campaign in 1956—but I have heard similar words used about the conduct of the present Government.
I find it ludicrous that the party that forms the British Government should now be split over theoretical arguments about sovereignty and a federal super-state which have no relevance in the world that we now inhabit. The situation reminds me of the Punch and Judy show in the Labour party 10 years ago over unilateralism and multilateralism which prevented my party from discussing the real difficult problems of defence—some of which, I am bound to say, have not yet been tackled by the Government.
I believe that the Punch and Judy show that has monopolised our television screens for the past week—and, indeed, some of the debate today—must end.

Mr. Skinner: Why?

Mr. Healey: On this issue I would rather put my country and my world before my party. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I may find it necessary occasionally to comment on the behaviour of the Conservative party because, after all, it forms the Government who represent Britain in the negotiations.
The Conservatives have done nothing to explain the issues that I have attempted to describe. We are now told that the Conservative party chairman is the evil genius behind the Prime Minister—certainly he is the leading Christian Democrat in the Tory Government. The party chairman has failed to remind his colleagues in the past week that last year, before the Conservative party decided to encourage its Members of the European Parliament to join the European People's party, that organisation produced a manifesto committing it to work for a federal constitution of the European union.
I am not entirely surprised that the chairman of the Tory party has preferred to escape from confronting those little local difficulties into a rhetoric that has grown increasingly baroque in the past week or so. With my own ears, I heard the right hon. Gentleman saying on television last week, "The Government have a heroic commitment to


hard-nosed pragmatism." The same day, he followed that up with another interview, in which he said that European monetary union was, "spectacularly hypothetical". Sometimes I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had been gobsmacked at birth.
Just to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), let me say a word about the Prime Minister. I watched the right hon. Gentleman's face as his predecessor spoke this afternoon and I have never seen such inspissated gloom etched on a human visage in my life. When the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said that she planned to support him in the next election, he must have been reminded of Lenin's promise to support the social democrats as the rope supports the hanged man.
All of us like the Prime Minister and it is difficult to be rude about him—I have not yet attempted it—but I must confess that he reminds me of one of the most notable characters in current folklore—Charlie Brown in "Peanuts". You may remember, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure that you are an avid follower of "Peanuts", that Charlie Brown was once approached by Lucy—a bossy little girl—[Laughter.] The parallel escapes me. Lucy asked Charlie to join her on an ocean cruise, so they got on the boat and she took Charlie up to the sun deck and said to Charlie, "Now, Charlie, there you will see a stack of deckchairs, and you have to put your deckchair up—and Charlie, if you want to look backwards, you put it facing the stern of the boat"—which she obviously preferred herself—"but if you want to look forward into the future, you place it facing the prow of the boat." "Now, Charlie," she said, "which way do you want your deckchair facing? Charlie replied—so much like the Prime Minister—"I don't seem able to get my deckchair unfolded."
I hope, without great confidence, that the Prime Minister will manage to get his deckchair unfolded at some time in the next 12 months. But, of course, after 12 months, the liner will be under a different captain.

Mr. David Howell: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is, of course—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving please do so quietly?

Mr. Howell: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East is quite right to remind us that the most enormous changes have taken place in Europe over the past two or three years —and more are taking place even as we debate the motion before us, particularly as yet more fearsome dangers develop in the Balkans and as Yugoslavia begins to fragment. No doubt we shall see many more dramas as the Soviet Union, the creation of Lenin, is replaced by something entirely different in the coming years.
When we hear great debates about the European Community, its purposes, origins and intentions, we all sometimes feel that we are fighting battles of old—I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East on this—and about the issues of yesterday, and that we are not concerned with the problems, issues and needs of the Europe of today and how best to address them.
Let me start with the speech made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who got into a bit of a muddle. The right hon. Gentleman

seemed to start by getting rather swamped by his press cutting service. Once he got going, however—and I came to the serious part of his speech—he eventually expressed the view that there was some kind of monolithic set of European views and that Britain was fighting a desperate rearguard action against it. If the right hon. Gentleman listened more carefully to his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East, and to others who understand what is happening in Europe today, he would realise that his view of a line-up of the eleven, all holding a monolithic commitment to a single currency from Lisbon to Berlin and to a federal European state, does not accord with the views or the motives of any of the major states of the Community today.
We do not need to guess at that—to suck our thumb and hold it in the wind—because we can see that, at the moment, the motives of all the various countries are very different and that the politics of the Community are leading us into fascinating new patterns. At the moment, the Germans still want just to submerge their identity in a larger federal European state, but they want that to come very slowly indeed, because they are extremely nervous that the deutschmark will be watered down if the French, the Spanish and others get their sticky political fingers on it. So the Germans want to go slowly.
The French have quite different motives for wanting to reassert themselves at the centre of Europe—some would say, unfairly, for trying to reverse the verdict of Waterloo. At any rate, they want to assert a kind of Europeanism which I do not think is shared by the federalists in Italy, who take yet another view, which is that Brussels would probably be able to manage their affairs better than Rome —which is why they are totally in favour of everything to do with a federal Europe—or the Spanish, whose main concern, which has emerged clearly in recent weeks, is that they want and hope for substantially larger dole-outs of money to compensate for any federal involvement that they may pursue.
The various countries have different motives, and to regard them as a massive rugby line-up, with poor little Britain having to fight against them with no hope of changing their views, is a complete falsification—a complete parody—and encourages the kind of unnecessary defeatism that Britain should not for one moment accept.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East was again right to say that we must understand what the European Community's motivations now are. We know what they used to be. Right at the beginning, they included reconciliation between the French and the Germans—the "never again" mentality. They used to include the aim of forming a west European enclave for capitalism against the great Communist leviathan in eastern Europe. Frankly, both those motives have long since given way to the much more subtle and important task of creating a gigantic prosperous centre of free trade—a great single market—in which the old fortress mentality and the idea of lining up against nameless enemies from the east have disappeared. I have no difficulty at all—although I think that some of my hon. Friends have a difficulty—in envisaging a new Europe, whose motives are different from the original motives, moving at a variety of speeds. I am not even sure that I accept the idea of speed, because it implies a clear destination, but, in any case, I have no difficulty in envisaging a Europe moving in different gears


and in different ways and with different and diverse policies all within the broad aims of the European Community.
Our corner on European monetary union is that we want European co-operation and want to try out the idea of a common currency—the hard ecu, or a hardened ecu, or a hardened basket ecu, or whatever the Spanish want —but that we are very sceptical about the idea of ever seeing a single currency operate throughout this gigantic continent, let alone throughout the enlarged continent that Europe is bound to become.
I find that—as the Americans would say—an entirely comfortable position. We should not be afraid to fight our corner and to set out clearly why we are where we are. We should be prepared to explain why, although we see the benefits of a degree of monetary co-operation and—if we stretch the sense of the word—union, we also strongly endorse the perfectly respectable arguments that hold that a single currency is a rather silly idea.
Perhaps, at the time of the treaty of Messina and the formation of the Common Market, we missed a few buses, or failed to catch a few trains. In this instance, however, such analogies prove false: history does not repeat itself, but, as Mr. Balfour said, historians repeat each other. This time, there are not buses to be missed—although, if we drive too fast, there will be car accidents to be avoided. We are, I think, right to develop ideas for a common currency, if people want it. We should allow the choices of the future to lie with the people of the future, if the markets say that it makes sense for a single currency to be run by a single central bank for the whole gigantic continent. Personally, I think that they will say the opposite, and that in 10 or 15 years' time—given the existence of more electronic and information technology—Europe may have more currencies than it has now.
As I have said, I envisage no difficulties over the monetary aspect; I think that we can fight our corner. Now for the political side. We hear the word "federal"—which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in what I considered an excellent speech, called a poor and dangerous word. Today, of course, he is right: to Conservative Members at least, the word has come to mean some rather undesirable things that we have spent a whole decade trying to get rid of. It evokes the collectivising and centralising mentality that struck us as so uncongenial in comparison with enterprise and the market economy.
It was not always like that, however. A long time ago —in pre-collectivist and pre-socialist history—"federal" meant something entirely different. To James Madison and company, the founding fathers of the United States of America, it meant extremely limited and carefully circumscribed central powers; they wanted not a strong centre, but a weak one. The aim of the liberals of those days was to establish a weak centre for the federation, or confederation, that became the United States.
Because of the American civil war, two world wars and other factors, the proposals of the founding fathers did not work out. They argued, however, that, from time to time, certain powers should be given to that weak centre, and that, from time to time, certain powers should be taken from it. There should, they said, be no inevitability about successive increases in power at the centre. That was the

true spirit of what was then called "federation"; alas, the word has now been hijacked, and I understand why some of my hon. Friends—and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—find it difficult to deal with.
That, however, should not stop us arguing in favour of our view of the European political structure of the future. It is, as my right hon. Friend said, the right structure; and, if it must be translated into English as "confederal" instead of "federal", I see no problem in that. The structure to which I refer is based on nation states' ascribing to the centre—the Community institutions that are their servants as opposed to their masters, inferior rather than superior in terms of political power—certain tasks that from time to time should conveniently be done on a Europewide or Communitywide scale. Those tasks must be performed under a strictly accountable Council of Ministers.
I do not see why we should not boldly assert that that is our European view—and we are good Europeans; certainly the country wishes us to be. We want a Europe that is rather different from the old-fashioned, collectivised federalist ideal: we do not believe that there must be huge strength at the centre if the system is to work. We must look both to a future that will not require that strength and to the distant past, when our forefathers perceived that a gigantic, collectivised state machinery was not required to enable nations to co-operate effectively.
For more than a century, thus fashionable political philosophy espoused, and led to, a drift of power to the centre. I believe that, at this point in our history, we have a fabulous chance to enable European countries to come together and work together, free from the vanities and conceits of collectivism and the overweening state. We have a real opportunity to establish a different kind of Europe—different, in a way, from what the United States has become, and certainly different from the now collapsing Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That was the ultimate over-centralised structure; such structures cannot hold, and are destroyed by the spirit of the age and the advance of technology, as Mr. Gorbachev is rapidly discovering.
Conservative Members have told us this afternoon that we should be very afraid of certain things—although my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup seemed to be saying that we should not be afraid of anything. Certainly there are some dangers. Perhaps I am myself courting danger if I take the middle position; Aneurin Bevan said that those who walked down the middle would be run over, so I shall probably emerge as a pancake.
The real danger is the danger of paralysis in a European Community that is too inward-looking and to preoccupied with strengthening its central institutions. We should fight that danger—not just Britain, but many other democrats and liberals; perhaps Liberals as well. Conservatives, too —indeed, all non-socialists—do not want an early 20th-century socialist Leviathan to be recreated on a European scale.
There are two ways in which we can fight that self-paralysis. First, we can do so through the vigour of our positive arguments, not only here in London but at every meeting attended by my right hon. Friends. We see the need for further European development of every kind; we see the need for reform of the Community institutions; but those institutions are our servants, not our masters. That is the principle on which our proposals for political reform must be based.
Through his calm and common-sense approach, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has succeeded in depolarising the fruitless debate of the past, and reduced it to the key question: not whether we should be in or out, but what European structure we should now have. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out, our ideas should be to the fore. We should not be constantly on the defensive, saying what we do not like.
That is the first thing that will save us and our friends from what has come to be called federalism—wrongly, in my view; it is really the centralism endorsed by those who want much stronger institutions at the centre, telling us what to do in a quite unnecessary way. The second—here I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—is the opening up of eastern Europe, and the marvellous commitment of the Governments who are succeeding the communist regimes of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the rest to market economics and open, free trading. That may push the protectionists in western Europe—and they are there—and the centralists —they are there, too—on to the defensive, and stop them constantly presenting their views as though they were the good Europeans and the rest of us were not. I believe that it ought to do that, and also to put our ideas of the European future on the offensive.
Let me echo earlier speakers by saying that, above all, we must understand that if the eastern European countries, having sloughed off communism, fail to make it to democracy and market prosperity—and they are not there yet—we shall all fail. That is the ultimate surrender of the very task for which the Community was formed; it may not be an exaggeration to say that the second world war was fought for it. It was the dream then that Europe should be a continent of free nations, although that disastrously failed to materialise in 1945.

Mr. Devlin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the rest of the Community goes ahead without us and we are left outside, still dominated by the decisions of those who remain within, we, too, shall have failed?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend's question has been asked many times over the years. It presupposes that a great, unified team is marching ahead and that Britain is outside it. I believe that not to be true. The political scene is far more open. It is possible for us, using our best skills, to join in. What will defeat us is our silence, equivocation and total negativism. If, however, we are positive, we shall have a role to play with the other parts of Europe that decide to go ahead together. We ought to go ahead with them.
Political reform in Europe is needed. The treaty of Rome will probably have to be amended. I have no doubt that that will come out of one of the intergovernmental conferences, just as proposals for monetary development will come out of another intergovernmental conference. On the political side, however, we need very tightly defined powers for the Commission—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I remind the House that speeches between now and 9 o'clock are limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. Peter Shore: As always, I find myself in substantial agreement with the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). In

particular, I would emphasise what he said about the importance of a wider Europe—a more all-embracing Europe than the present Community of the Twelve. In addition, whatever that Europe's policies are, they should not be Euro-centrist. We are now part of a world community. We should be involved in global management, not simply with the affairs of Europe. That is one danger that the increasingly tightening bloc in Western Europe faces.
I want to turn to what I believe is at the very centre and heart of the debate—federalism. The debate is not just about the word but about the reality of federalism. What I say will, I hope, be helpful to the House. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) asked, "What is wrong with federalism? Did we not give it to Canada?" By saying that, I think that the right hon. Gentleman showed that he had entirely missed the point.
We are not talking about devolution within a sovereign state. All sovereign states have different measures of local government, regional government and so on. That is not the issue. Those who say that it is are concealing the truth and confusing others. The essence of the federalism that we are talking about is when a sovereign state accepts a higher tier of government than itself—when it is prepared to transfer powers to that higher body, powers which previously it exercised exclusively on its own behalf.
In countries that practise federalism, we know that there are three marks that distinguish every federal state that has ever existed. One of them is a single currency and a central bank. Show me a single federal state that has not got them. There is not one. Secondly, a federal state is one in which its external affairs—trade, foreign affairs, security and defence—are no longer controlled by itself as a sovereign power but transferred to the higher authority. The third distinguishing mark is the recognition that, when there is a conflict between the lower tier—the old nation state—and the upper tier of the federation, it is the upper tier whose laws have supremacy. As we know, that is written into every European Community Act.
If we look at the substance of the two treaties—I am not talking about the use of the word "federal"—what do we find? One is about economic and monetary union, in which the proclaimed goal is a single currency and a central bank. The other treaty—I am glad that the Foreign Secretary does not want to go along with it, and I hope that he will resist it very hard—would lead to the creation of a common security policy, a common foreign policy and a common defence policy. There is no doubt about what they are up to.
Article H of the draft treaty, which is not before us today, says:
Member states shall support the Union's foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly in the spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They should ensure that their national policies are in line with the common positions agreed upon. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations. The Council shall ensure that these principles are complied with".
Article K says:
Once the objectives and means of a joint line of action have been defined, each Member State should be bound by the joint line of action in the conduct of its international activity.
There follows this lovely sentence:
At international conferences and in international organisations, the Union's position shall, as a rule, be put by the Presidency.


If such a commitment is accepted, we shall not even have a voice. How do we exercise our power and our voice in the Security Council if we allow the presidency to speak for us and on our behalf? I know that the Foreign Secretary will resist that with all his power, but make no mistake: the essence of these two treaties is that they are federal treaties in character and in intent.
The opening words that Mr. Delors and Mr. Poos have put together are explicit on the matter. They have let the word "federalism" out of the closet. They say at the very beginning:
This new Treaty marks a new stage in the gradual process leading to a federal type Union.
They end with these words, under the heading "Final Provisions":
An intergovernmental conference"—
another one—
shall be convened by
1996
at the latest to examine the provisions of the said treaties from the standpoint of strengthening the federal nature of the union.
No British Government and no Leader of the Opposition, if he were in government, would dare sign to those words and commitments. It would be a breach of faith with the British people and an unforgivable act against the interests, wishes, prosperity and independence of this country.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), whose trenchant speech, like that of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), had the useful effect of showing up the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for what it was—a second-rate, evasive, scissors-and-paste job, quite unworthy of anyone aspiring to the job of Foreign Secretary.
On our side of the House, the debate has been dominated by two ex-Prime Ministers. I am extremely happy that the Government's negotiating position is very much closer to the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) than to those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). That negotiating position, spelled out with excellent clarity by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, is one of being hostile to federalism, staunch in the defence of our parliamentary sovereignty and positive in its enthusiasm for union through European co-operation. One should be intrigued by the negotiating skills for building these pillars of co-operation outside the competence of the Commission. That is certainly the right way to go. I applaud that approach and thoroughly support it, but one must ask: can my right hon. Friends, as negotiators, deliver it when it comes to the crunch at Maastricht?
The trouble we face is that there is an impatience in certain European quarters with the British emphasis on co-operation, evolution and pragmatism. That impatience comes not from the member states but from the Commission. It is the Brussels Commission that is fighting for its empire of the future and that wants to extend the Community's competence in a whole range of areas that impinge on our national sovereignty.
Let us look, for example, at Home Office issues—terrorism, drugs, immigration, security. No nation wants to co-operate more than Britain does with that sort of pillar of union inside Europe to fight these various Home Office matters, but the one thing that we do not need is to have that truly national area of policy subjected to the paraphernalia of the treaty of Rome, majority voting and so on. Our negotiators are right to resist such policy being sucked into the competence of the Commission.
It is crucial to understand that the device by which the Commission seeks to extend its competence appears in the preamble, or chapeau, of the draft political union treaty—the inclusion of the words "federal destination" or "vocation federale". That device will give the Commission the prescriptive right to bring such policy under its control.
That is why it is crucial not to use federalism as a semantic argument, but to tackle it head on. It is the litmus test of whether we should veto the political union treaty and whether the phrase "vocation federale" is included in the umbrella, preamble or chapeau of the treaty.
There is a second litmus test, because, under article 189, the draft treaty seeks to impose the radical, revolutionary principle that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary mentioned—co-decision in legislation for the Commission and the European Parliament. That would take sovereignty from national Governments and Parliaments. Co-decision in legislation, as all Back Benchers know, is impossible in its practicalities and quite wrong in principle. I am certain that those two litmus tests—the vocation federale and the treaty, if we signed it—would be a massive and irreversible diminution of Britain's parliamentary sovereignty.
To show the depth of what I am saying, I take the House to the heart and soul of the draft treaty, which is in print for the Luxembourg summit but apparently is not in the Library. I refer to the parts of the treaty that seek to impose majority voting on a range of new law-making areas, such as industrial policy, energy policy, tourism, health, culture and defence. Those policies have been central to the responsibility of national Governments and Parliaments for centuries. A political union treaty, in anything like its present form, will mean an unacceptable shift of power from Whitehall and Westminster to the Commission. That momentous change must mean the downgrading of Parliament to the level of a regional assembly or a glorified county council.
Surely, as British legislators, we should draw the line in the sand right there. If those elements still appear in the treaty after the Maastricht conference in December, that will be the crunch, and we will have to face up to the grim possibility of vetoing it. One need not be too pessimistic; there is plenty of negotiating to be done.
When making decisions on our future role in Europe, there is a difficult conflict, or at least tension, between Britain as a parliamentary nation and Britain as a trading nation. We joined the Common Market, as it was then called, to extend our trading opportunities. We certainly do not want to lose the advantages of the single market or to be excluded from this powerful club—as a trading nation, we have a great role to play in the club by making it more outward looking, less protectionist, larger and more of a genuine free-market enterprise—but to stay in the club, must we make certain concessions and accept some reduction in our parliamentary sovereignty. The answer to that question is yes in pursuit of co-operation, but no in pursuit of federalism.
Let us remind ourselves that federalism was not in the original treaty of Rome. The original treaty referred to
an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.
I see that as union through co-operation. That idealism was good enough for Schuman, Adenaur, Spaak and Monnet and should be good enough for us, our partners and even the Commission.
The more I participate in Euro-debates, the more I realise that the true argument on Europe is not between opponents and proponents, between Europhiles and Europhobes, but between dreamers and realists. The crunch of realism will come when we vote on what has been negotiated at Maastricht. The $64,000 question is, should Britain accept a political union treaty or EMU treaty, the effects of which will mean a substantial change in our constitutional arrangements and a severe reduction in the power and sovereignty of Parliament? If the treaty that has been finally negotiated means accepting a federal destination, and it says so, the principle of co-decision in legislation and vast expansion of majority voting into new law making that has hitherto been controlled by the House, Government and Parliament should say no and veto the treaty.
With six months of negotiation remaining, we should not talk too easily about vetoing. I do not believe that it will come to that. Let us trust our Prime Minister and ministerial negotiators to achieve what we all want to achieve in knocking out the more objectionable parts of the draft treaty. Let us wish them well in their efforts to build a pillar-by-pillar union by co-operation. Let us hope, too, that our European partners are listening to these arguments, will take heed of our special British and parliamentary concerns and will change course enough to let us build an European union by co-operation and not by federalism.

Mr. Giles Radice: We can all agree, whatever the heat of the debate, on the importance of the decisions taken at the two intergovernmental conferences, especially the one on economic and monetary union. Whether we stay out of or participate in the arrangements that emerge from the IGCs, they will help to shape our destiny for the next 50 years.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that the United Kingdom must participate fully in economic and monetary union and in the moves to closer political union. I do not believe that we can afford to be excluded. Three times in the past 40 years, Britain has decided to stay out of agreements to integrate western Europe. Each time, the decision proved to be against our best interests.
When the United Kingdom rejected the Schuman plan at the beginning of the 1950s, it helped to establish the Franco-German hegemony, which is now such a dominant feature of the Community. In the mid-1950s, we stayed aloof from the plans to establish a Common Market and ensured that the shape and rules of the Community were designed to suit the interests of the original Six and did not reflect British needs. We also missed out on the great period of Euro-growth in the 1960s and 1970s. At the end of the 1970s and during the 1980s, we refused to join the exchange rate mechanism and not only deprived ourselves of an extremely valuable counter-inflationary discipline

but were shut out from the central economic management of Europe, although we were increasingly affected by the decisions that were taken.
We cannot afford to be excluded again. Those who fulminate so fiercely against EMU should have the courage to give us the alternative. A Britain outside economic and monetary union would be relegated to the second league.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Why?

Mr. Radice: If my hon. Friend will keep quiet, I shall tell him.
Inward investment would go to the inner group of the EC at our expense and our financial dominance in Europe would be threatened.
The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has implausibly suggested that Britain outside EMU could become the Hong Kong of mainland Europe. Even if we could agree that that would be a desirable objective, I doubt whether an excluded Britain would be able to play that role.
It is significant that key peripheral countries such as Sweden and Austria are now applying to become full members of the EC obeying all the rules including the move to EMU. On the other hand, a British Government who took the decision in principle to join EMU would not only be in a good tactical position to influence the timing and shape of the eventual EMU package which emerges at Maastricht, but would give their economic decision makers a long-term objective which would help them to take the right decisions to improve the underlying performance of the economy in terms of inflation, productivity levels and investing in the supply side.
A decision in principle would thus help to create conditions that would lead to the convergence which hon. Members on both sides of the House believe is necessary to make EMU work. In those ways, participation in EMU would assist in keeping Britain in the European first division and would therefore would be in the best interests of this country.
In the few minutes that I have left, I want to consider the debate about the political implications of the two intergovernmental conferences and the language that has been used. We have heard much about the "F" word—federalism. I do not want to add much to what has already been said, except to agree with those who believe that it is basically a red herring.
To some extent, the EC already has some federal aspects. European law has primacy over laws legislated by national Parliaments. Under the Single European Act, the Council of Ministers takes certain decisions by qualified majority voting. The Commission has considerable executive power particularly in agriculture and trade. The European Parliament is also directly elected.
However, clearly the EC is not in any real sense a federal state on the German model or any other model. Nor is it likely to be in the near or medium-term future, whatever my colleagues may say. Instead, it is moved forward according to the Monnet strategy of building a united Europe in an ad hoc, block-by-block way.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is right: the EC is sui generis. We cannot use the old terms to describe it. Peter Jenkins was right, when he stated in Tuesday's Independent:


Europe's destiny … is more likely as a sui generis community of nations, increasingly federal in some aspects, but increasingly confederal in others, a pluralistic amalgam of interdependence and local independence.
So the debate about federalism is a red herring. However, in addition to the "F" word there is the "S" word which is used by Britain. That is "sovereignty". As the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs pointed out, to the United Kingdom the notion of national sovereignty is almost indistinguishable from the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. That arouses great passion in British political circles, although, according to the polls, it is not so important among the electorate.
I remember the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), during her disastrous Rome summit statement which led to her downfall, taking me severely to task when I suggested that her hostility to a single currency threatened to relegate the United Kingdom to the European economic second division. She asked me why then, as an advocate of EMU, I was bothering to stand for Parliament. Behind the right hon. Lady's taunt lies her belief in exclusive parliamentary sovereignty.
However, the notion of absolute parliamentary sovereignty has already been severely eroded by our membership of the EC. The right hon. Member for Finchley was a member of the Cabinet that took us into the EC which now has an extensive system of law. The Government signed the Single European Act which established qualified majority voting. The Government also joined the exchange rate mechanism which limits the right to change the value of the currency. All those actions have eroded parliamentary sovereignty.
In any case, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, so confidently advocated by Dicey at the end of the 19th century and now so fervently echoed by the right hon. Member for Finchley a century later, is out of date in terms of individual rights. It has proved inadequate to defend British citizens against the abuse of power by the Executive.
Significantly, there have been 21 judgments against the United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights —the largest for any signatory nation. Seventeen of those have taken place under this Government. The new democrats of the EC cannot fail to note that the Community countries with written constitutions and a codified Bill of Rights have performed far better in respect of individual rights than the United Kingdom, which has relied exclusively on parliamentary sovereignty.
The United Kingdom is the most centralised state in the Community. In most other member states the regions now have considerable powers guaranteed by their constitutions. In the Community, it is the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty—not federalism—that upholds centralised power. It is certainly right to be concerned about democracy in the Community, but the answer to the question about the democratic deficit is far more likely to be found in extending the powers of the European Parliament, as the socialist parties in the EC argue, than vainly trying to defend the indefensible—the anachronistic doctrine of exclusive parliamentary sovereignty.
We must insist that our negotiators free themselves from such outdated concepts and ignore emotional language such as we heard from the right hon. Member for

Finchley. Instead, they should consider carefully where British interests lie and be clear about their aims and press for a positive and constructive outcome. Common European action is needed when national effort is inadequate. It is very much in the interests of the British people and other European nations to join together to create common policies, rules and institutions. Our future lies in the European Community.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: I welcome this debate, which is about one of the most important and challenging issues facing our country at the present time. Happily, with the conspicuous exception of the speech by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) from the Opposition Front Bench, the speeches we have heard today have lived up to the importance of the issue.
The Government undoubtedly have an extraordinarily difficult hand to play. I believe that they are playing it with considerable skill and they deserve the full backing of hon. Members not merely on this side of the House but of the House as a whole.
I speak as a long-time supporter of British membership of the European Community. Like many others, I welcomed the Community as an inspired constitutional innovation far more intimate than any conventional alliance, but less than a federation, providing a framework in which independent nation states could co-operate as never before.
Despite the common agricultural policy, the Community has proved over the one third of a century since its foundation to be a remarkable success, particularly now, with the single market programme in full swing—although some difficult decisions lie ahead—and the prospect of enlargement to include the European Free Trade Association countries and, as soon as practicable, the countries of central and eastern Europe.
With regard to the central and eastern European countries, incidentally, when certain of those countries—in particular Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia—are making heroic efforts to achieve the unprecedented transformation from a command economy to a market economy and their peoples are suffering as a result of the short-term hardships inevitably incurred in the adjustment process, it is deplorable that the European Community should deny them the markets that they so badly need for their agricultural produce.
But, the CAP apart, the Community has proved to be a remarkable success—and it is the beacon to which Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia are now drawn. However, paradoxically, it is at just this point that we are being asked, in effect, to jettison the Community and to replace it with a full-blooded federation.
The origins of that misguided initiative are sometimes misunderstood. They are various, but pre-eminent is the fact that France has always seen itself as the heart and head of the Community. It has therefore found the dominance of the Bundesbank in the important monetary field increasingly irksome. In fact, I believe that the dominance of the Bundesbank, which has not been imposed on the member states of the Community, but arises from the free play of market forces assisted by the independence of the Bundesbank—something from which we could learn—has served Germany and Europe as a whole. But for France it was politically objectionable and


it was thus in their view necessary to abolish the Bundesbank. That could be done only by replacing it and, indeed, all the other national central banks by a new European central bank responsible for a single European currency. But that move, however understandable—although, I believe, misguided—has the most profound political consequences. Even the Financial Times a few months ago admitted:
The economic benefits of EMU remain speculative. The ultimate effects on the distribution of power between member states on the one hand and the European Community as a whole on the other are likely to prove substantial. EMU is a political project, as the Commission states.
That is quite true, but let me quote from an even more exalted authority than the Financial Times, Hans Tietmeyer, a very able man who is the present deputy president-elect of the Bundesbank. Indeed, in two years, when important events are going to take place, he will almost certainly be the president of the Bundesbank. A fortnight ago, he said:
All participants must be clear that the loss of monetary sovereignty will make national efforts to solve domestic economic problems impossible … EMU requires a single monetary policy and effective rules to enforce budgetary discipline on the member states. These prescriptions are difficult to implement because they affect national sovereignty. On this issue it becomes clear that EMU can work only within a wide-ranging political union.
That is what Hans Tietmeyer said, and he is absolutely correct. In other words, it requires a federal Europe—a united states of Europe—or a single super-state, if one likes to use that word, with a federal constitution.
A single currency requires a single bank which must be matched by a single Government and a single state if the democratic deficit, which people are concerned about as it is at present, does not become completely impossible and intolerable.
Of course, there is nothing whatsoever disreputable about advocating a federal Europe. The only thing that is perhaps the faintest hit disreputable is the behaviour of those who maintain that there is no real issue—that it is merely a question of semantics. Would that it were so, but nothing could be further from the truth. Federalism is indeed, as the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said, a dispersion of power, but it is a dispersion of power within a single nation state. It presupposes the existence of that nation state. That is the point.
The question really is whether federalism—a federal Europe—is right either for Britain or indeed for Europe as a whole. In my judgment it is not. Look around the world today. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) pointed out, almost everywhere, multinational federations are under intolerable strain, from Yugoslavia, which is falling apart as we speak, to Canada whose Government are struggling desperately to keep French Canada and English Canada together. There are many other examples.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East was right to identify the acute difficulties in the foreign exchange markets today, but the solution lies not in EMU, but rather in the development of the G7 process of co-operation, because this is a worldwide problem, along the lines which I and others tried to get going with the Plaza agreement and the Louvre agreement some years ago.
A federal Europe, if it were ever to come about, would produce just the same strains that we see in other

multinational federations today, and they would inevitably be exploited by nationalist demagogues of the worst kind. That is something that I view with the deepest foreboding.
Finally, I revert briefly to the question of the single currency. It is, fortunately, a long way off, so there is time for the issues to be fully argued out and for wiser counsels to prevail. Meanwhile, I believe that the Government are entirely right in refusing to be bounced into agreeing to the principle of a single currency on the disingenuous grounds presented to them that progress is possible only if there is a clear commitment about the precise nature of the ultimate destination. Not only is that not how the Community has worked in the past and not a sensible way to work now, but it is disingenuous, as I have said, because it ignores altogether the vital political question of what precisely is the proposed constitution of the new single-currency Europe.
It is only when that—the destination that until recently dared not speak its name—has been fully hammered out, with this country playing its full part—I have never at any time nor will I advocate the empty chair—that this House can sensibly be asked to decide whether it wishes to preserve the constitutional status quo—that is to say, to preserve the European Community which has been a constitutional innovation and a great success, or whether it wishes to embark on some new and, in my view, profoundly unwise adventure.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I start by agreeing with the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) that this debate has indeed been impressive. It is right that the clear differences that we have heard within each side of the House have been expressed in the way that they were by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who praised the Government but certainly disagreed with many of their policies, and by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
The central issue is whether we wish to remain a country enmeshed within the Community. If we do, we have to pay some attention to the wishes of other members, particularly when we find ourselves in a minority of one. Such a minority position is not a matter for rejoicing, as the former Prime Minister seems to think; it is a matter for great dismay.
If we play such a part in opposing what other countries want, in the end they will find ways of managing without us. The story of the dog in the manger did not end with the dog for ever denying food to the hungry; there are ways of dealing with such a dog. That role can operate only for a limited time. We could find ourselves bypassed. Once again, we could find ourselves excluded.
Why is it that other countries seem to see such advantages where we see few or none? Let me detail some disadvantages. My principal opposition to EMU is that we are a country economically much weaker than the Government seem to think we are. We need to restore our manufacturing industry to the comparable levels of the past and comparable levels with Germany. In fact, if we had an economy as flourishing as Germany's, I would be a whole-hearted supporter of the EMU. The system of a central bank in Europe, leaving aside the control of it, will favour the powerful economy. I only wish that that was us. Even if policies were wise and far-sighted, there would be


great time lags in their results. The public expect earlier successes than even the most enlightened programmes can provide, and elections come round before even the most far-seeing policies can deliver.
What are the prospects for a European central bank? Britain would, of course, have a representative, and the bank might have to report to a group of Finance Ministers. Controlling a central bank in one country is difficult enough. I recall a Chancellor of the Exchequer envying the role of the Governor of the Bank of England. There is the day-to-day tussle even when it is nationalised. Nobody can doubt the present Chancellor's problems with the Governor. In Germany, as we know, it is even more difficult.
Why did we nationalise the Bank of England? Why did it get the support of prominent Conservatives such as Bob Boothby? It was because the lack of control was obvious. An international bank with immense powers would supposedly be controlled by people from different countries with different views and different languages. Since when have politicians been prepared to hand over such authority to such a powerful bank or to give it authority in the day-to-day running of monetary affairs for the whole of Europe? We cannot be sure that our Prime Minister will be as powerful as the chairman or the governor of such a central bank.
The trouble is that the major loss to the independence of the United Kingdom would be its ability to set our exchange rate. My right hon. Friend the member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is correct: one cannot have complete control over one's exchange rate, but one can have some. In an area where there is so little control, that little is certainly of value. The case of East Germany is a problem writ large. If it is bad for us, how much worse would it be for a country like Portugal or Greece?
The role of the exchange rate is crucial to the conduct of economic policy. If one could separate the economic controls that one can devise, I have always held, "Let me control the exchange rate and you can have everything else." The economic performance, the balance of trade and balance of payments desperately depend on the role of the exchange rate, which would be the responsibility of the managers of monetary union. Such a monetary union could not work for long in the way that enthusiasts for it expect.
Even in the old East Germany the only prospects for success—in their exchange rate equalisation with western Germany—lie in an enormous outpouring of funds from West Germany for 10 to 15 years before it will have the advantages of West Germany. That is the position when the two are part of the same country, sharing the same language and culture. In the Community of the future, such massive movements of capital are, to say the least, unlikely. In the absence of those, the Community cannot accept a central bank which would provide gains to the wealthy at the expense of losses to the poor.
Of course we want convergence, but it will take a long time and will require certain political decisions which many countries will find distasteful. However, we are not the only people who are claiming to see into the future. Such a commonplace observation must be occurring to

people in the other 11 countries. If those economic laws are certain, they will be so proved and will result in changes within the Community.
I do not believe that there are industrial dragons in other countries waiting to do us down. If Europe is not a co-operative venture, it is nothing; it will collapse under its own deceptions. The Community has to convince each participant of the advantages to them. That is why so many countries in Europe, outside the Twelve, want to participate in and to join the Community, and we must welcome that fact. The future of the Community must lie in co-operation—without co-operation it is bound to disintegrate. The trouble is that the determined non-co-operators reside within our country.
There comes a time in any organisation when the impetus for change is so great that to resist it means the ultimate exclusion of the dissenters. It is far better to point out the difficulties, discuss the problems and assume our rightful place in the field of consultation and deliberation and so use our influence for good as well as for the common good. That is why it will be necessary to ally ourselves with other Community countries, which will eventually come to realise the dangers, including those of federalism, and construct new ways to provide for such an authority.
We have to decide our future on the basis of what we may be giving up and of what we may get in return. Is it the right to an independent destiny? The real great British disease lies in comparative analysis, when we compare our hopes for the future with the present performance of others. Such words as "economic miracles" and "Germany, watch out" play a large part in this Walter Mitty world. Meanwhile, we maintain absurdly high interest rates, which are inflicting great and lasting damage on our manufacturing industry. Reducing interest rates may weaken our position in the exchange rate mechanism, but that is a risk which we should be prepared and willing to take.
It is a pity that the right to continue our own, if disastrous, economic policy is seen as the right to control our own destiny. That so-called "right to our own destiny" has to be offset by the danger of failing to play our full and proper role in a Community which has consistently been more flourishing than we have been on our own.
We still have certain advantages, but we have failed wretchedly to make the most of them. Probably our greatest benefit is that we share the language of the United States of America and the geography of western Europe. Our position as a bridge between them ought to have been of immense advantage to us. By playing a full and less reluctant role we could still use some of those advantages which we possess even yet.

Mr. William Cash: Today we have heard some of the most interesting contributions to the debate on the future of Europe for many years. Having participated in such debates over a long period, I believe that it is important to view this debate in the context of recent speeches by the Prime Minister at Swansea, the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the conference on economic and monetary union the other day, and the evidence of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs a few days ago. If we look at the content of those speeches and


observations, against the background of what we have heard today, it will be apparent that there is a genuine centre of gravity in the Conservative party and across the Floor of the House, which arches over party political interests.
Above all, this is a national question and for that reason those of us who have tried to stake out territory on this matter have done so with vigour and have received some flak for it.
The idea that we could get ourselves into a federal Europe is absolutely unthinkable, and that is clear from speeches made from both sides of the House today. If one message goes out to Mr. Delors and the European Commission today from a series of vigorous, robust, clear and constructive speeches, which were not anti-European, that message is that the House does not wish us to become part of a federal Europe.
As the Prime Minister said the other day, one cannot stop history. He also said that one cannot stop the European Community. Some hon. Members want the essence of this House to be reflected in the European Community and that is its democratic traditions. That is the essence of today's debate. The heart of Europe lies in its parliamentary assemblies and this Parliament is at the heart of democracy in Europe.
One agenda to which we have not given much thought during the debate is that, if there were to be a federal Europe, who would run it? We ought to glance at that during these discussions.
It is clearly stated in the basic law of Germany that there should be a united states of Europe, and that has been forgotten. We must ask ourselves about the cluster alliances which would tend to gravitate around the economic dominance of Germany. I am not saying that I would not want Germany to play a full part in a co-operative Europe, but I do not believe that it would be in our interests, or in the interests of Germany, to allow that country to develop a predominant role, based upon the Franco-German axis which has been generatd since the 1940s and 1950s for valid reasons. That would tend to dominate the Community and would not be in the interests of the people of Europe or of this country.
Another problem is whether we should accept the draft treaty amendments now being proposed. If one examines the proposals, one sees that it is not merely a question whether there might be federalism. If one takes the draft treaty at face value, it is crystal clear that it is talking about the high contracting parties establishing among themselves a union and not, as I heard earlier, an ever closer union.
The treaty marks a new stage in a process leading gradually to a union with a federal goal. Citizenship of the union is the essence of it. Every page of the document—its breadth, its length and its depth—is pure federalism. Therefore. we are not merely up against the prospect of whether the word "federalism" might be introduced into the language of the Community. The truth is that, in six months, when the debate takes place in Maastricht, we shall be faced with the question whether we could accept it. It is clear from today's debate that we could not. If that is the case, we should ask ourselves how we are able to get into the negotiations in December and extricate ourselves in such a short time. If only we had been able to discuss these issues more openly before. I am afraid that that question might have to remain unresolved.
Another issue to be considered is that Germany does not want a central bank and economic and monetary

union of the type proposed until 1996. What is the reason for getting into this serious discussion which is now in train and for staying with it in December? We should be persuading our partners in the European Community that what is happening will help destroy the very Community that we want to maintain. That is the problem.
On "The Money Programme" the other day, I heard the German Economics Minister say that, in the light of the reunification of Germany, he was worried about Germany being faced with civil disorder. That scenario will, a s I understand it, be compounded by the withdrawal of social security benefits from 1·7 million Germans on or about 1 July, with all the strikes and difficulties in the rest of Europe—in Greece and in France where the growth rate is also plummeting. Why on earth are we still faced with the prospect of that happening, not as a dance on a theological pin and not as a question of semantics about subsidiarity which would shove everything up to the top so that we should have a centralised system, but as the political reality of seeking to do something that is politically and economically unrealistic and not in the interests of Europe, let alone the interests of the people of this country?
We must ask ourselves some fundamental questions not only about whether we can square the theoretical circle about the constitutional arguments that we have discussed today, but whether we can square the circle of the political and economic realities with which we are also faced. We should bear in mind the words of Humpty Dumpty in "Alice's Adventures Through the Looking-Glass" who, when asked about the meaning of words, said that they can mean whatever one chooses them to mean. He went on:
The question is … which is to be master—that's all.
At the heart of the question is not merely the issue of semantics—what is federalism or what is subsidiarity—but the use of power; the use of power which could easily gravitate to some countries at the expense of this country by the cluster of alliances to which I referred. However, if that did not work and we were trapped into a system that would not produce the right results, there could be massive instability as a result of which the whole of Europe could disintegrate at the end of the century when we could least afford that to happen. The experiences of the USSR and of Yugoslavia have shown that to be the case, and we need to learn their lessons. The debate is not about semantics, but about the realities of political life.

Dr. David Owen: One important feature of the debate is that there is a readiness on all sides of the argument to accept that we are dealing with fundamental questions. I welcome that, for there has been nothing worse than the attempt to evade the underlying reality that the founding fathers of the European Community always dreamed of a European state. That was checked by General de Gaulle, and when Britain decided to join in 1971, the House was assured by many people, not least the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), that we were entering not a united states of Europe, but a European Community that had changed of its own volition as a result of the acceptance of the French position that no country could have its vital interests overridden, that the Luxembourg compromise existed and that the European Community would be a community of nation states, a confederation.
It is humbug to try to pretend that the word "federalism" means devolution, or that it is about giving power to Scotland—of which I approve—or to Northern Ireland and Wales. I want to see a federal United Kingdom and I believe that it makes sense. I do not wish to see a federal state of Europe in which fundamental decisions affecting the destiny of this country are made by that state, its own elected president, its own Cabinet and its own European Parliament. It is high time that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup came clean and said that that is what he wants. It would not be a bad idea if the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) also came clean. She does not like the European Community as it is. She would prefer a free trade area and resents elements of the transfer of sovereignty over and above a single market.
I believe that the vast majority of people in the House and in the country want a European Community that is genuinely sui generis, which is not modelled on the United States of America, which cedes and has already ceded sovereignty in various key matters and which is not trying to cull that back. In external affairs we have already ceded responsibility to the Commission for negotiating the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The draft treaty now asks us to cede—undoubtedly and ineluctably—decisions on foreign policy and on defence and security.
I read the treaty for the first time today, and there is no question in my mind but that, were it to be put before us in December, we should have to reject it. It will undergo much negotiation; it may be possible to remove some of these elements, and we will have to seek compromises on various matters.
Much attention has been paid to European monetary union. The right hon. Member for Finchley accepted a Europe of different patterns and recognised that the Schengen group of countries—initially five or six, and now eight—have accepted no borders between them. That seems perfectly acceptable, and it would be wrong for Britain to say that they should not do so. They have contiguous borders. It makes sense to them, and nobody should object.
We must get used to seeing a variegated pattern for the European Community. As I understand it, the Government are saying that if within the European Community some member states wish to opt for a single currency and fixed exchange rates, we shall not stop that development. However, we are not ready to say that we would join that system now. We will not act as we did over the European monetary system and say that it is not a question of when, but of whether. We are reserving our judgment on both whether and when. We want so to design the treaty that it does not mean that one is a pariah because one has stayed outside it.
Can anyone seriously believe that Greece will be in a condition to have a single currency and fixed exchange rates within the next decade? There are a number of other Community countries that will also not be in that condition. I fear that if we sign up for a treaty in which only Britain is allowed to be a rather oddball exception, it will encourage the belief in Brussels in a tight, narrow Community. It will then be said, "Of course, we cannot have Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia in."
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made the matter clear. He seemed to expect that it

would be 20 years before such countries could come in. The right hon. Gentleman cited the problems of Spain. I remember that many people in Brussels argued that Spain could not be taken into the European Community in 1977 and 1978. It is to the credit of the then Labour Government that we strongly argued for enlargement, and Spain has been a striking success.
What are we about in this European Community? Are we seriously saying that we dare risk a failure of the transition from a communist country to a democratic market economy for Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia? If there is one border in Europe which could bring back war and certainly tension, it is the Polish-German border. If there were a massive economic barrier between those two countries, there would be tension and problems. It is time that we said to the European Community, "For geopolitical reasons, you must expand to those three countries."
We might even have to say to the Scandinavian countries, "Of course you are going to come in, but hold back a little while we enlarge and you take on responsibility for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania when they become"—as I hope they soon will be—"free and independent nations again, wanting to make the transition to democracy and to a market economy, and needing the help of the Scandinavian countries." Yes, we will have a community of 24 or 26 countries in the first decade of the new century, but our fundamental responsibility is to make certain that the countries that have come out of the communist fold succeed. Then it will be time for us to spread our wealth and expertise into the Soviet republics, and then it may be time to take on the problems of Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia.
We cannot do it all. We have seen the problems that the united Germany faces in the former East Germany. It will be a difficult task to achieve the transition successfully, especially for Poland, but it is our moral and ethical responsibility to do so. Hungary opened its border to Austria, which was the key factor that allowed the Berlin wall to break down. The Germans have a moral responsibility. We who left Czechoslovakia to stand alone in the 1930s have a moral responsibility to help the Czechs to rediscover their nationhood.
Let us not be ashamed of nationhood. There were comments about the horrors of nationhood. What about the glories of nationhood? What about the fact that Britain was prepared to stand on its own at one stage in the cause of freedom? This is not chauvinism or jingoism. I am prepared to concede more sovereignty in some areas within the European Community. It may be difficult for us to do that, and compromises will have to be made. We may have to agree to discuss in a co-operative sense some areas of policy, which hitherto we have not wanted to do.
The key point is the question of majority voting. If we go down the route of paragraph 2 of article J in the draft treaty we allow majority voting for some areas of foreign policy decided by the European Council. Are we saying that, every time that the European Council meets, and foreign policy is on the agenda and common action is agreed, we will veto it? That is the only way if we are to preserve the principle. If we do not veto it every time it comes up, we allow majority voting. That is nonsense.
What are the nine areas suggested? They include relations with the Soviet Union, which may be the most complex and difficult question that Europe has had to face and on which the present members of the European


Community have had very different views in recent memory. Many of them were not prepared to deploy cruise and Pershing missiles. Many were not prepared to stand firm against the Soviet Union. Many have not been prepared to take on international terrorism. Many were not prepared to support us in the Gulf war. Belgium has refused to supply ammunition to the British forces within the past 12 months. Am I now to be told by the Belgians that we are to have foreign policy decision-making on a majority basis? It is nonsense, and it has to be made clear that it is nonsense.
The value of the British Government's position at present is that they are arguing their case as Europeans. That is the great achievement of the Prime Minister and of the Foreign Secretary, and that is why they deserve our support in the Lobby tonight. They are not arguing as people who want to turn the clock back or as people who do not want the European Community to succeed. They are not saying that there are some areas of new sovereignty that we are willing to concede. They are saying that it is in the interests of Europe that the European Community does not become a federalist, narrow, inward-looking, mercantile and rather neutralist outfit. There is an idea that this will be a superstate. Half my worry is that it would not have the power that is needed.

Sir Richard Luce: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) focused some of his remarks on central Europe, and I will come back to that issue. In a debate like this, one cannot help but reflect that it is an occasion on which to take stock and to look at the overall perspective. We tend to lose sight of that when we live in the Community day by day.
One cannot help two reflections. The first is that it is a remarkable achievement that we are arguing in the Community about how we should evolve rather than fighting wars as we have done twice this century. That in itself is a remarkable achievement.
The second reflection is that, if we were to withdraw tomorrow morning from the Community, we could only ask ourselves what the consequences would be for Britain. They would be total isolation, no political influence and economic decline for this country. Those two reflections in themselves denote the importance of the debate about our membership of the Community.
Against that background, I thought that the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was quite astonishing. We were waiting to hear what the Labour position was on the Community. The speech reminded me very much of a play by Samuel Beckett called, "Waiting For Godot", which I watched as a student. We waited and we waited, and Godot never came. I must confess—perhaps I should not, as a former Minister for the Arts—that it was the only play I ever walked out of. At least I did the right hon. Gentleman the courtesy of staying in the Chamber.
By contrast, we had an inspiring speech by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which reinforced what the Prime Minister said so strongly—that we in Britain must be at the heart of Europe. I cannot help but reflect, having listened to the speeches of my right hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), former Prime Ministers and former leaders of the Conservative party, that both have

played a notable part in building up Europe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup took us into Europe and my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley played the most prominent role in helping to create a single market in Europe. Both of them have played a remarkable role in that connection. Even if they are not prepared to rest content with that, at least I will rest content with that.
The clear theme that comes out of the debate is that the Community is constantly developing and evolving, and that there is no single label such as "federation" that is the appropriate answer. The process is sui generic—it is developing of its own accord, and we must look at it in that way.
Against a background of a constructive, sensible and pragmatic approach by the British Government, and one in which we intend to comply, once we have agreed to a decision, with the decisions of the Community, we must consider the eastern—or as I prefer to call it, the central—European situation. In my view, nothing could be politically more important for the future of Europe than the stability of central Europe. We are already involved in negotiating association agreements and in negotiating with the European Free Trade Association. However, we must remember the lessons of the 1930s, when a former Conservative leader talked about. "a far-away country" about which "we know nothing". My goodness, we came to regret that attitude of mind and that approach. Just look at the consequences. We cannot afford to see that happen again.
Above all, next weekend in Luxembourg, it is supremely important that we give a clear message of support to the democracies of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the others. Following the end of Soviet domination and of communism, they are now struggling to achieve democratic systems and to develop economically in a plural society. If they fail, that could lead to disaster for all of us—not just for them. It could lead to disillusion, to authoritarian rule, to the growth of ethnic tension, to fragmentation and inevitably, as we have seen throughout the centuries, to rivalry from their large neighbours.
The Community has rightly done much by providing emergency aid, food, structural and economic aid. Although all that is beginning to happen, it is crucial that we now reach an association agreement with those three countries that gives them access to trade. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) rightly said, the most vital thing for them at present is for their agricultural and other produce, and goods and services, to have access to the outside world. Between now and the Maastricht meeting, it is important that we decide the likely implications of those three countries—and the other nine—acceding to the Community in the longer term, because their accession will almost double its size. We cannot ignore that issue. Even if it means slowing down the pace of achieving closer co-operation within the Community, that is a price worth paying for welcoming the central European countries into the democratic fold of European nations.
When my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replies to the debate, I hope that he will tell us whether the Community is giving priority to assessing those implications and, above all, to giving a warm welcome, a gesture of friendship and encouragement, to central Europe by providing those countries with an association agreement and the clear signal that, in due


course, we will welcome them fully into Europe. That political gesture is of the utmost importance, not only to them but also to ourselves.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) referred to the parts that have been played by his right hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who are both former leaders of his party. I should like to reflect first on their "contributions" and then to turn to the machine of the European Community in its legislative form. I believe that the hon. Member for Strafford (Mr. Cash), who said, "It is all right as long as it is not federal," is being a little over-optimistic.
The position of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup can be summed up by what he did to the Crown in Parliament, which, as everybody agrees, was our final authority until 1972. In passing the Act for which many Conservative Members voted, the right hon. Gentleman effectively said that the legislation of the European Community could, without further enactment, become the law of the United Kingdom. In other words, that Act and that right hon. Gentleman constructed a bypass around the Crown in Parliament. It is true that, at that time, the only area in which majority voting operated was the rural byways of the common agricultural policy, but those provisions bypassed the Crown in Parliament, and thus this House and the electorate.
The right hon. Member for Finchley then came along. She is a great marketeer and is keen on markets, wanting freedom from the oppressive state. But markets are not necessarily free of authority: the more complex the market, the more rules are needed. Let us look at the money markets. What is a bank? It is what the Bank of England says. It is what our statutes say it is. The more markets there are, the more authority is needed to control them. The idea behind the Single European Act was to ensure a multiplicity of markets throughout the Community in almost everything—trade, money, speculation or specification and, potentially, in the wages and conditions of people at work, which is known as the social dimension because men and women are economic persons and, if nothing else, are part of the labour market.
Knowingly or otherwise, the right hon. Member for Finchley agreed the definition of the single market as "an area without internal frontiers." In that connection, people think of lorries, barriers and 1992, but they do not think of the legal frontier of the market—yet frontiers can be legal as much as physical. If one removes the legal frontier, as required under article 8(a) of the Single European Act, one has to provide an authority over the whole. The Single European Act centralises that authority for any market.
In addition, that authority is determined not by unanimity but by majority voting. There are three elements to this issue—"without further enactment", "without internal frontiers", and "without unanimity". Taken together, those eight words represent an awesome degree of central power. That central power exists even

now—even without economic and monetary union. That central power is not, and need not become, federal—it exists as a unitary power.
There has been a lot of talk about federalism and about federal organisations. Federations can be either weak or strong but, on any definition, they all involve a separation of powers. Under the treaty of Rome, however, there is very little separation of power, because power is centralised to an extraordinary and remarkable extent. The Foreign Secretary may talk about subsidiarity at the best place, but the centre decides where that best place shall be. As the Single European Act and the idea of a single European multiplicity of markets automatically make that place the centre, subsidiarity cannot apply in any case.
What then becomes of national Parliaments? Like other colleagues, I have had the privilege of meeting many parliamentarians from other countries. Sadly, we have come to more or less the same conclusion—that even now, with the present single market being due for completion at the end of 1992, national Parliaments can be little more than national advisory councils on the scope of the present European treaties. If any hon. Member thinks that a national Parliament can do more, I should be pleased to hear about it.
That is the present scope of the national Parliaments according to the European treaties, even in relation to European monetary and political union, which we have been discussing today. Therefore, I advise those Conservative Members who think that they can get rid of that "F" word, "federalism", that that is not really the point, because the basis of power already lies in a unitary structure, which, by definition, has great power at the centre.
Although the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is no longer in his place, I understand that he will be replying to the debate, so I should like to ask him a question. The Prime Minister has said that he will not allow a single currency to be foisted upon us—at least, not without the acquiescence of the House. However, under the so-called "compromise" which has been suggested, I can see a different scenario.
If we have fixed and irrevocable exchange rates, a common interest rate and a single economic policy, does it matter what one calls one's currency? Do they not amount to the same thing? Would it not be possible to keep the pound, just as the Irish kept the punt, although only as a matter of presentation? I fear that the Government may seek to go down that road to fulfil the demands which are properly made from their Back Benches. The Government will merely create a presentational solution, while there would be economic and monetary union in every sense of the words.
I conclude with three questions which must be answered fully and squarely if the British public are to understand the issues. First, if we are to avoid a central Government of bankers, by bankers and for bankers, how can we have a central political institution which has not in effect become a centralised European Government?
Secondly, what study have our Government made of the benefits of economic and monetary union? If they have carried out such studies, will they please publish them? What study has been made by any other Government—I am referring to national Governments, not to the


Commission or the Council of Ministers—of the same matter? What benefits do other Governments expect will be available?
Thirdly, given the scope of the treaty—perhaps much watered down from the drafts which are floating around now—on political, economic and monetary union, and however the bankers and the money are controlled, what future do members of all parties in this House see for national political parties? Surely, national political parties can operate only within the power given wholly to national Parliaments.
If the power of national Parliaments is much reduced, what is the use of a national political party? If the function of parties is limited, or if they disappear into some great European arrangement—there are already moves in that direction, certainly across the Floor of the House—what is the value of the vote of the citizen of the United Kingdom?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Previous dreams of a great central European power have been responsible, as history accurately records, for war, hatred, bloodshed and disaster. In the past, those dreams have turned into nightmares. Anyone who visits Strasbourg, Brussels or the institutions of the Community is well aware that there is a mad craze to build a new superpower in Europe. One has only to examine the construction of certain pressure groups in the Strasbourg Parliament and read the reports that come out of them to know exactly what those groups are up to.
We are told that the great new power that will come to fruition will take away from this and other national Parliaments 80 per cent. of the matters with which we now deal. Where will they be dealt with? They will be dealt with according to the President of the Commission in Brussels. The amazing thing is that we are told that the system of taking 80 per cent. of the powers of national Parliaments to Brussels is a form of wonderful devolution. It will spread power to the lowest possible level. In my opinion, the lowest possible level must be in the moral level. The change will certainly not benefit the constituents.
We are also told that we are to have a central bank. We are told that it will be a financial wizard and that it will give us a single currency. It will dictate both monetary and economic policy for all who are in the superstate.
When one sits in Europe as I do, one hears wonderful things. Conservative Members may not know that in the last debate in the previous session of the European Parliament, one of their colleagues—a Mr. John Stevens who represents Thames Valley—told his colleagues not to be unduly worried because Parliament would realise its ambitions once people had "Europe in their pockets"—in other words, the ecu in their pockets. He will find that Britain will not have Europe in its pocket, but that Britain will be in the pocket of Europe.
We are also told that the supergovernment will take over not by election or democratic principles but by appointment. The great so-called European ideal was produced by Delors and his clique. The House should note that the members of the Commission are not the masters of Europe. They should be the servants of Europe. It is about time that that message went out from this House.
It worries me that by a cunning scheme of propaganda our nation is reckoned to be a poor European. Yet when I take up the standard of our nation in Europe, I discover

that we are well ahead as Europeans. Let us take the directives that must be made part of our law in order to bring in the Single European Act. Belgium lectures us, yet it has not even touched 31 directives. Denmark has never even considered 25 directives and Spain has not considered 38 directives. The Italian Foreign Minister read a lesson to us all on television the other night about what Italy intended to do. Yet Italy has never even looked at 70 directives. Greece has not considered 28 directives; the Republic of Ireland has not considered 44 directives and Holland has not considered 35 directives. Yet Britain has to implement only 23 more directives. We are third in the league, yet we are lectured that if we say anything about Europe or denounce anything that is done in Europe we shall not be considered good Europeans.
This Parliament has been a good European. It has been too good about playing cricket by the rules while other nations ignore the rules altogether. It is wrong for people to say that, simply because we object to certain European proposals, we are not playing the game. Our nation has played the game, even too well.
What have been the effects of our membership of the Common Market? To hear some of the folks speaking today, one would think that everything that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) told us during the referendum campaign had come true. We were told that membership of the Common Market would be a panacea for all our ills and would cure unemployment. What has happened? Before the United Kingdom joined the EC, its home market was larger than it is today. The seven other countries in the European Free Trade Association, the Republic of Ireland and all the Commonwealth states charged a lower level of duty on United Kingdom commodities. Between 1957 and 1973 United Kingdom manufacturing output rose by 67 per cent., but from 1973 to 1988 it rose by only 3 per cent. We need not expect the market to be the be-all and end-all of our troubles.
The report of the European Commission tells us what we can expect in this great new Europe. It tells us that the economic forecasts for Europe are not encouraging. The slump and deterioration in the Community are expected to worsen. The report says:
Economic growth in the community decelerates significantly from 3·3 per cent. in 1989, to 2·7 per cent in 1990, and 1·4 per cent. in 1991. Investment growth slows down dramatically in 1991 to a poor 0·8 per cent. Employment creation will almost reach a standstill in both 1991 and 1992.
Do we want to hand over this Parliament's powers which alone can deal with our economic ills and the employment question, to a Commission that admits that that is what lies ahead in Europe?
According to a leading socialist, Mr. Metten, at the previous debate in Strasbourg, the idea is to create the new bank and put it into an annex to the treaty that can never be amended by any Parliament. Will the Government stand for that?

Mr. Jim Sillars: The two speeches that I found slightly amusing this afternoon were made by the right hon. Members for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). They were good speeches, but from a Scottish nationalist point of view they were amusing. The right hon. Lady said that the nation state was the foundation of European union, but the


United Kingdom is a multinational state. The right hon. Gentleman said that we should not be ashamed of nationhood and made a stirring speech that received cries of "Hear, hear" from both sides of the Chamber. If I had made such a speech about Scottish nationhood I would have been denounced as a narrow nationalist.
My party's policy is to obtain Scottish independence and for an independent Scotland to be a member state of the European Community, just like Ireland and Denmark, which the Foreign Secretary said earlier this afternoon were his partners in one of the consensus-building exercises in which he is engaged. However, I shall concentrate on the political and constitutional issues and, were I in an independent Scottish Parliament, I would make the same kind of speech as part and parcel of the debate on the future development of the European Community.
At first, the European Community was entitled the "European Economic Community", and there is bound to be a logical progression from that foundation to a single market, from a single market to a monetary union and, ultimately, from EMU to a single currency. Time does not permit the deployment of the arguments on that particular proposition, but those economic impulses, and the framework and institutions that they throw up, automatically create a need to address the political framework of the European Community. The political institutional framework must match the economic framework that is developing.
I am in favour—as is my party—of the maximum amount of unity possible, not only in western Europe but in eastern Europe. I have much sympathy with those who argue for a federal Europe because I understand perfectly their motivation to bring the peoples of Europe together more cohesively than ever before. However, I wish that they would not go down that road, because I do not believe that it will reach the objective that their motivation sets in train.
The speech by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) was fascinating. He told us that there was no problem in defining "federal". When I asked him, in the context of giving greater powers to the European Parliament, whether that meant that an executive would be drawn from the Parliament, he had great difficulty admitting that an executive would have to be drawn from that Parliament in a proper federal constitution. He tried to escape by saying that that was some way down the road. He also said that one reason why he believed in federalism was that it meant more democracy. I am not sure whether that is so. Federal organisations in the world show that a test must be applied to see whether they can work effectively in a truly democratic sense. I define "truly democratic" as being whether it engages the individual person in the decision-making process within that political entity.
Confederal Canada lacks the required homogeneity constantly to work in a perfect way—or as near perfect as human beings can get. The test of homogeneity is very important. For example, I cannot conceive of a federal united states of Europe where a citizen in Taranto in southern Italy is tuned into the argument in exactly the same way as someone in Inverness or a town in Germany, understanding perfectly the common policies that apply to

them all, and where the person in Taranto will vote in accordance with what he or she thinks is good for the person in Inverness because he understands the social and economic problems there. That does not exist in Europe because the culture and history vary widely. Such understanding is unlikely ever to exist in what we now call the European Community.
If we get it wrong—if the size is too big and it is not homogeneous—the Government machine will be alienated from the citizen. An excellent example exists in the United States of America, where only 70 per cent. of those entitled to vote register to vote. The turnout at presidential and congressional elections shows that there is something fundamentally wrong if my test of people feeling engaged is applied. In the great Kennedy-Nixon debate, which the world thought was extremely important—as a young person, I stayed up all night watching the results on television—only 62·8 per cent. of voters turned out. In the great Vietnam presidential election in 1968, only 60·9 per cent. of the electorate turned out. In 1988, the turnout was 50 per cent. and in the 1990 congressional elections, the turnout was only 33 per cent.
It must be difficult for a state with such a large population and geographical spread to achieve the political homogeneity about which I was arguing. The European Community must develop forms of union and greater unity, but it would be far better if we understood that it must be done on an incremental and ad hoc basis over a long period.
I return to the point that I made earlier about my desire for greater union and unity within the European Community. The European Community represents a potential core of stability in a continent that is not in a stable position at present. Some hon. Members have said that Europe will not experience a repetition of what happened in 1914–18 and from 1939–45. I am less sanguine. There are many problems to be solved in western and eastern Europe and the relationship between them. Having developed a degree of co-ordination and unity over a period of time, the European Community represents a model and a core of stability round which the rest of Europe can cohere in due course. However, the Community's relations with eastern Europe are fundamentally important.
In 1918, peoples and statesmen throughout Europe got it wrong and we got it wrong again in 1945. Earlier this afternoon at Question Time, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) told the Foreign Secretary that he was concerned with the past eleven hundred years of history. I am not particularly concerned with 1,000 of them, but am most concerned with what has happened in the 20th century. Because we got it wrong in 1918 and 1945, this has been a blood-drenched continent, and we cannot get it wrong this time.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I shall begin by taking up a point made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in the slightly sordid preamble to his speech, which was longer than the speech itself. In it he sought to exploit the view that Conservative Members were divided down the middle on this issue, which is not so. I believe that a small number of


Conservative Members are Euro-enthusiasts and, at the other extreme, there are perhaps a greater number who are Euro-sceptics.
Certainly, those extreme views have, to some extent, been personified by the opinions expressed by my right hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). It is perhaps a little ironic that the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup have been more adversely affected than anyone else by the channel link with Europe and curious that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley should conclude that the right place to attack the whole federal idea was the United States of America—an idea that did not seem to occur to her or her audience.
The vast bulk of Conservative Members, and I suspect Opposition Members, are firmly of the opinion that we should not take either of those extreme views but, on the contrary, do everything we can to back my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in what are immensely difficult negotiations of fundamental importance to the future of not only this country but Europe as a whole. Therefore, it is important to do all we can to ensure that those negotiations come to a satisfactory conclusion.
I share the views expressed by the right hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and a number of my hon. Friends that the draft treaty floating around the House—still unofficially, I am sorry to say—is unacceptable in a great many respects. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a difficult task during both sets of negotiations at the intergovernmental conferences. We have to decide where to strike the right balance. We are pretty clear about the draft treaty and I want to stress a point made in a report by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on the Delors report:
The power of the House of Commons over the centuries has depended fundamentally on the control of money, both taxation and expenditure. This would be jeopardised by the form of monetary union proposed by the Delors Report which would involve central undemocratic direction from within Europe of domestic budgetary policies.
The control of money that has been fundamental to the power of the House over the centuries.
I greatly welcome what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said about it being wrong to hold a referendum on the issue of a single currency. The issues surrounding it are extremely complex and confusing. There is a fundamental difference between a single currency, where all other currencies are abolished, and a common currency set alongside the existing currencies. I suspect that, if we had a referendum, the number of people capable of making such a distinction would be remarkably small.
What should we do about the single currency? Are we in favour of a single currency in principle? We certainly did not receive an answer to that question from the right hon. Member for Gorton this afternoon. I shall make my own position clear: I am in favour of a single currency for Worthing and, by and large, for the United Kingdom, but I am totally opposed to the idea of a single currency for the world as a whole. The crucial issues are the size of the geographical district being considered and the differences in economic performance in relation to a number of important factors.
It would be totally wrong for the Government to go along with a treaty that stated that we should move to a

single currency at a certain date without regard to what had happened in relation to convergence. I agree with the view expressed by a number of my hon. Friends that, if we had a single currency, it would place a barrier in front of outsiders, making them incapable of joining that single currency system within the next 50 to 100 years. That in turn would diminish the extent to which the Community could be widened into eastern Europe and elsewhere. Therefore, the issue of a single currency is crucial.
The Delors report envisages that, in order to offset the traumatic effect of perpetual unemployment, which a rapid move to, or general agreement on, a single currency might create in some parts of the Community, there should be a large fund from the EC moving from one part of the Community to another. There are two objections to that. First, allocating resources to underdeveloped areas has not worked in the past. Secondly, there would be no guarantee that such financial flows would take place. Therefore, we should strive to create common interests with a number of other Community partners, not least Spain and Portugal, and oppose the idea of a single currency.
The broad scope of economic opinion is that, even if we moved to a single currency, it would not be necessary to hand over control of fiscal matters, whether taxation or public expenditure, to the Community. The control of such issues by the House is important. I am puzzled, because those are simple points that any decent, first-year economics student should make, but we have failed to get that message over in the Community. I do not know why Community members are pressing ahead with those ideas, which would be disastrous for us if we were to rush ahead on a preconceived timetable.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley made an important point when she said that, if we were not to go along with a single currency but some other Community members were, it would be totally inappropriate to start making large fiscal transfers that were supposed to offset the effect of the single currency. I am worried about the way in which the rotation of the presidency of the Council of Ministers from one country to another gives an enormous impetus to whomever happens to be president to say, "We must do something impressive." That happens each time the presidency changes, which is after only a short period. If we were to lengthen that period, whoever happened to be president would take a less macho approach.
We have tremendously a difficult role to play. Mr. Delors seems to think that it has something to do with the date of our election, and that if we let him go ahead with what he wants now, we can then decide whether to go along with it after the election. That is a total misconception of what this is all about.
We have a role to play in obtaining the right solution for the United Kingdom and for Europe as a whole. It is right that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should put over the simple arguments that I have sought to advance during the negotiations. There will be extremely difficult negotiations in both intergovernmental conferences, but I have great confidence in the ability of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues to reach a satisfactory solution. That is something on which I believe my right hon. and hon. Friends are united, and I would hope that Opposition Members could reach that position as well.
It is my impression that those who occupy extreme positions are beginning to come more towards the centre. It is right that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House should give clear warnings on the real dangers that we shall face if we do not recognise that we are discussing matters of the greatest importance. It would be extremely dangerous to rush into a timetable.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The speeches of the two former Conservative Prime Ministers, the right hon. Members for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), showed clearly that one purpose of the debate is to enable us to express our grief about the way in which European issues threaten to destroy the Conservative party. As Jacques Delors, our dear socialist friend would say, "C'est la grand tristesse pour tout le monde." In other words, such sorrow for us all.
Recent unattributable briefings from Downing street have sought to suggest that there are only six venomous vipers on the Tory Back Benches who are causing trouble over Europe. Senior Foreign Office officials have told me, however, that they are working on the basis that there are about 80 spotted snakes among Tory Members, whose poisonous tongues will have to be excised if the European dream is to come true. My response to those officials has been to say that those 80 or so Tory Members are no more than the dying embers of the old order and are the sarcophagi of British political life. Perhaps it is only right on moral as well as political grounds that a backward, fractious and ignorant island like ours should have about 80 backward, fractious and ignorant Tory Members sulking and skulking on the sidelines of Europe and of history.
On 30 May I attended an all-day conference organised for senior business men and women, which was entitled "European Monetary Union in a Turbulent World". The first speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave what everyone present described as a surly, anti-European address. Over lunch, the Germans and French to whom I was speaking expressed alarm at the Chancellor's lack of authority, stature and gravitas. The Chancellor's speech was followed by one by Rudiger Dombusch, a distinguished American academic from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He said that joining EMU was rather like getting married—one could either draw up a long list of reasons for not marrying or just get on with it and marry. I think that he added, "We have just heard the list."
On 10 June, in an effort to make up for the damaging effect which his speech of 30 May had had on our European partners, the Chancellor met Pierre Beregovoy from France, Guido Carli from Italy and Hennig Christopherson, the EC Economic Affairs Commissioner, and led them to believe that the British Government accept the principle of EMU. Unfortunately for the Chancellor, Beregovoy, Carli and Christopherson made the content of their private conversations public. Immediately all hell was let loose in this country, and on 11 June the Government, who only the day before had been dealing with the Second Reading of the Dangerous Dogs Bill, came under savage attack from the pit bull terriers of the Bruges Group. The

Prime Minister was accused of being scared to use his veto and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Finchley, was reported as having said of him, "He stands for nothing. He is nothing."
At almost every Question Time now, a member of the Bruges Group asks the Prime Minister to exercise his veto over developments in Europe. Invariably he answers, "We will not allow a single currency to be imposed on this country without the consent of Parliament." Commenting on this on 15 June, The Economist under its byline, "Bagehot", said:
But Right-winger's question has gone unanswered. Challenged to veto change, Mr. Major instead offers a vote before the change is implemented in Britain—something quite different. Yet nobody complains. The exchange has been on the level of: 'Is the Eiffel Tower a fish? Yes, she is a banana.' (Rumbles of assent from Tory benches).
Where in the world, except in this place, would such prime ministerial ineptitude be tolerated?
Nor does the Prime Minister's approach impress Sir Alan Walters, the former chief economic adviser to the right hon. Member for Finchley. Sir Alan is worried about the exchange rate at which Britain joined the ERM and its damaging effect on the recession. He is right to be worried. Like Sir Alan, I do not speak with hindsight. On the very day that we joined the ERM, I said that the rate was too high. Moreover, it seems inconceivable that we should be thinking in terms of holding the rate of DM 2·96 to the pound right up to the point at which EMU and the creation of a single currency comes into operation, as it assuredly and happily will. At the current rate of exchange, Britain will not be able to return to its warranted rate of economic growth until 1994 at the earliest.
The Labour party's position on EMU and the creation of a single currency is translucently clear. It is that we accept the principle of monetary union with a single currency, but we believe that we will first need some years of a Labour Government to improve our economic performance in relation to that of Germany. It takes just 36 words to set out the Labour party's position.
I am convinced that the creation of a European central bank controlling monetary policy, with a single interest rate throughout the Community, will inevitably and inexorably lead in the direction of close and intimate political union.
I do not understand the Foreign Secretary when he says that Britain will not accept a federal European structure. Using words and political concepts according to their ordinary meanings, the European Community already has a federal structure, and Britain is a member. The question is not: "Does Britain support a federal destiny for Europe?" but "What kind of federal destiny do we support?" To be or not to be a federalist—that can no longer be the question. We are all federalists now.
In Britain we must accept that such values as our parliamentary democracy contains have to compete in the intergovernmental discussions on a new constitutional settlement in Europe, both with the French system of government as laid down by Napoleon and with the German devolved and regional system of government, which arose from the post-war settlement. Both the French and the German systems work better than ours, but I believe that Europe should model itself on the German system and be prepared to test that system to destruction. In particular, the European Parliament needs a second regional chamber to balance the enhanced powers to be given to the first chamber.
In Britain we have nothing to lose and much to gain from federalism. It is time that we preferred success to failure and stopped sneering at the material wealth and culture of the French, Germans and Italians. It is time that we spurned small-minded and shrivelled isolationist views and—on this side of the House, at least—co-operated with our Euro-socialist friends on the continent to inspire our nation. That is what we should be voting for tonight—the triumph of European socialism in less than two years in Britain, Spain, France and Germany, led by Felipe Gonzalez, President Mitterrand, Bjorn Engholm and the next Prime Minister of this country—my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock).

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) always appals me—the changes in his views remind me of a Militant supporter collecting funds for the Primrose League. He has suddenly become a violently enthusiastic European, but what he tried to say about what would happen to the Conservative party or to the Labour party is largely irrelevant. I hope that he and others appreciate that if the proposals were accepted it would matter not one bit whether we had a Conservative, a Labour or a Liberal Government—or any other kind. The same basic policies would be applied irrespective of who won the election.
The vital issue that we should consider is that of democracy. Whether one supports the Conservatives, the Labour party, or anyone else, or the principle of our democratic system of government is that people can choose. If they think that the Government are doing a rotten job, they can chuck them out. It they do not think that the Government are doing well they can give them a warning at a by-election.
The tragedy of the transfer of power to Brussels and the European Community is that people's views are wholly irrelevant. If we look to eastern Europe and elsewhere we see that where Executives and civil servants have power without any kind of democratic control, the same thing always happens: they become wasteful and irresponsible towards the public. If we throw away our democracy something very serious has happened.
This was expected to be a debate in which everyone would disagree, but the strange thing is that almost everyone has agreed. Almost every speaker has said that the subjects that we are discussing are vital and constitutionally significant. It worries me sick that we have heard almost exactly the same words in almost every debate whenever we have transferred sovereignty away from the House.
During the debate on the Single European Act, which was guillotined late at night, the same words were used. When we gave extra cash to the EEC, the same words were used. When we had the so-called reforms of the CAP and gave extra cash for that, the same words were used. But on every single occasion, after all the complaints and all the protests, the House of Commons has voted away its sovereignty because it has been reassured in some way. On the Single European Act, the House was apparently satisfied by the assurance that majority voting would be used only to enhance free trade. Sadly, it is now being used for almost everything—almost every law affecting us at

present. On increased funding, the assurance that we were given was that there would be strict budgetary controls; they proved to be a joke.
What worries me is that, today, word is again going around that these are significant, dangerous and worrying proposals but that, so long as we do not have federalism, everything will be okey. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will accept that all this federalism talk is a load of rubbish. If we had a federal state in Europe today, we should have more sovereignty guaranteed for the House than we have at present.
Today, because of the power of the various authorities and because of what is in the treaty, hardly any basic power is left to the House of Commons. It has almost all gone. To say that we shall enjoy some kind of victory if the word "federal" is removed is merely to give the House an excuse to agree to what is happening.
It worries me that there has been a failure to face up to reality in the debate. We hear about free trade in 1992. Over a year ago, I asked my county council to tell me of any firm anywhere in Essex that would benefit from the specific proposals. I am still waiting for an answer. I have asked my local chambers of commerce, "Does anyone here know of any firm that will benefit?" Again, I am still waiting for an answer. Yet glossy pamphlets are put out saying, "We will have free trade."
Even the superb right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) says, "At least we will hold on to our frontier controls." The right hon. Gentleman said that eight of the member states are to go ahead, three are left out and, happily, Britain is excluded. The right hon. Gentleman is not up to date. We have been excluded until the latest date—1995—the control of our frontiers has gone, and all that remains to us is the derogation. The sad fact is that we have lost almost everything. That is why it is vital that, in this occasion, we make the right decision and hold on to what little sovereignty is left.
We pretend that we still have sovereignty. People write us letters saying, "Please cut interest rates." On the radio the other night, we heard some idiot from CBI saying, "We appeal to the Government to cut interest rates." What we have to tell them that there is nothing that we can do about interest rates. We must wait and see where the ERM washes us. If we want to cut interest rates, the only way to achieve that is to send some of our friends over to try to create instability in Germany. The Government's powers are virtually nil, so we are kidding ourselves if we pretend that there are great powers that can be exercised by Labour, the Conservatives or anyone else.
We have to get it right. I am one of those who have voted against the various measures, waving the union jack with a dozen other Tories and saying, with them, "We are doing a grand job." The sad fact is that, although we talk about these things, we get nowhere at all.
I fear what will happen when we have another vote. The Conservative party is changing pretty dramatically. There have always been a dozen of us who have regarded the EEC as a nasty protectionist racket, and there have always been half a dozen Tory Members who think that the EEC is the best thing since sliced bread, but the mass in the middle have been broadly supportive of the EEC. The change is now affecting them. Although they broadly support the EEC, they are now worried, concerned and alarmed—as we have heard today—about what is happening to our democracy and our economy.
We are at a time of change, but the change will not affect everyone. I am sure that it will not affect the Secretary of State, but it is affecting most Conservatives and a lot of business men. We must simply hold on to what sovereignty we have. What the Prime Minister appears to be suggesting could be the best way of holding on to it, and that is a twin-track Europe—twin-track without any commitment to join in treaties or to pay the vast sums that will be spent by the central bank. The central bank will be able to do many things, but the main thing that it will do is to hand out billions and billions of pounds to try to achieve convergence. As long as it is "if' and not "when" —as long as no cash is committed—the twin-track approach might at least allow us to hold on to some of our basic sovereignty.
I believe that the Conservative party is undergoing a change—at least we are anxious to achieve unity—and that the principle of a twin-track Europe, without any possible commitment—and without any question of a contribution of cash—may be a way in which we can unite the Conservative party, which is understandably worried and concerned. It would also be generally acceptable throughout the country. If we do that, the time may come when we can ask Labour what its basic policy is.
Ultimately, the issue is far more important than what will happen to Labour or to the Conservatives. Let us at least accept that if we allowed the treaties to be implemented with our name on them and to be applied to us, it would not really matter which party won the next election. The same thing would happen: our democracy would be wholly eroded.
If we have one duty, it is to safeguard our democracy and not pass the powers to a central, bureaucratic machine over which the people have no control.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: There is no doubt that this year is a major turning point. This is our last chance to draw lines. If the proposals now envisaged, or any like them, are accepted, we shall be locked into a remorseless and irreversible momentum towards political federalism and the powers of our Government and our Parliament will be reduced to the equivalent of the powers of a charge-capped local council. We shall also see the peripheralisation of the British economy. Neither process is in Europe's present interests: we should consider the wider Europe, not just the little Europe that is advocated by some of my hon. Friends.
Our main aim should be to bring Europe together—to bring the eastern European states into a wider and looser relationship. Every time that we make that relationship deeper and more "committing", we erect bigger barriers against the states that we need to help and integrate. The same applies to the nations of the European Free Trade Association. We must not become more exclusive and selfish, and keep such nations out.
Nor do I accept the idea that we should build this federalism on the basis of economic and monetary union. We have already had 11 years' experience of the first stage, in the form of the European monetary system. The consequences of that have been disastrous for the European economy: growth has slowed more, unemployment has risen more and the deflation record has been

worse than in most comparable economies. The position, in all those respects, has been worse than that in the United States and the EFTA countries. Europe's record has been even worse than the pathetic record of our Government. Europe has become the deflationary blackspot of the advanced industrial world—and this has been only the first stage of economic and monetary union.
We have now embarked on the second stage. Britain's experience of the exchange rate mechanism, since the present Prime Minister forced it on his wilting, submissive, nervous predecessor, has been disastrous. We have been locked into a deflation process that has become inescapable. The Government say that, if we get inflation down, interest rates will fall. That simply is not true; interest rates will fall only when the level of the pound permits it. Our control over our interest rates, which we need to manage the economy, has been subordinated to the need to keep the pound in the currency band. It is like trying to improve the weather by nailing the needle on the barometer.
Last October, when we entered the ERM, the level was over-valued—more than 20 per cent. up against the deutschmark, in real terms, on the level in the last quarter of 1986. That will have exactly the same consequences as those described by Keynes in 1925, when Churchill returned to the gold standard with an over-valued level.
We are now locked into a depression—a deflation—that is the preliminary to a sustained deflation of the kind that France experienced in the 1980s. That still awaits us, but we shall experience it at the end of the present ordeal. Economic and monetary union would compound the problem. It could work in only two sets of circumstances. The first is an absolute convergence of growth, productivity and industrial power. Without that, we get the strong draining the weak, as is happening in east Germany, or there needs to be a massive machinery of redistribution—the McDougall committee suggested about a tenth of European gross domestic product—to offset the consequences. Neither is proposed. If we say not whether but when, we abandon the attempt to get either of those two preconditions, which will be disastrous for this country.
In the absence of control over our interest rates and exchange rates and our budget and tax policies, we will be unable to rebuild the economy. The role of this Parliament will then change. Traditionally, the role has been to bring our grievances first to the monarch, then to the Executive and now to the party in power. We shall continue to bring those grievances—there will be many more of them—but there will be nobody here to bring them to.

Mr. George Robertson: This memorable debate has spectactularly shown that grand passions are rightly and properly excited by the European debate. This is far from being the first time when Europe has dominated the headlines and produced wildly differing but equally strong felt opinions.
As so many hon. Members have emphasised and underlined in the debate, this is a momentous time for our country and our continent. At this time, therefore, of all times, with the intergovernmental conferences under way and, behind closed doors going into the details of arrangements that will last for a generation and beyond, for our Government to appear to have as their principal


and overriding objective the impossible task of holding together their own warring factions is the most foolish and unproductive of all negotiating techniques. It represents a genuine tragedy for this country.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that the issues that we are debating today are so basic to our nation's future that we must and should be clear about our objectives. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made clear the Labour party's objectives in the intergovernmental conferences. Hon. Members who were not listening will be able to read the details in Hansard tomorrow.
Let me make it perfectly clear that the Labour party believes in Europe, broad and deep, as a community, not just as a market. We believe that closer co-operation on monetary policy between the European Community countries is both inevitable and desirable. We believe, too, that our European Community partners are intent on economic and monetary union. That was the objective of the Single European Act that Conservative members endorsed in the Lobby. Our partners want a European central bank, leading, if possible, to a single European currency. The Labour party believes that it would not be in the national interest if Britain allowed itself to be excluded from such developments, but have our own conditions for that process.
First, accountability must be at the heart of the process, with the Council of Finance Ministers having the task of providing strategic guidance for the union. Secondly, there must be convergence between the economies. That will be necessary, not just for this country but for any system to operate. In distinction to the Government on the issue of convergence, we believe that there should be instruments that will make that convergence happen. That means strengthened regional and other structural funds.

The Financial Secretary to The Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, because I am sure that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have worked this out very carefully and done their sums very carefully, what sum they propose should be added to the Community's budget for this additonal regional structural policy and what effect it would have on the net contributions to be paid by British taxpayers to our colleagues and partners elsewhere in the Community?

Mr. Robertson: I was coming to that, but I shall deal with it now. Unless the Government change the rules on the regional funds, any increase—there will be an increase in regional funds, whether the Government like it or not —will mean that we will be larger net contributors to the budget. The rules must be changed to allow inter-regional transfers. We are not in a position to give—

Mr. Maude: rose—

Mr. Robertson: I have little time to make my speech. I cannot give way to the Minister, who keeps bouncing up and down all the time.
I make clear and repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said this afternoon, amidst the hubbub of Conservative members. Our objectives for the political union IGC are clear. We support the social charter and the social action programme. We favour majority voting in the Council of Ministers on social and environmental matters. We favour some extension of

power to the European Parliament and early enlargement of the Community by its immediately welcoming Austria and Sweden, which have applications on or about to lie on the table.
That places Labour firmly in the mainstream of European thinking and in a strong position to negotiate with sensitivity and good will on the other matters that are being suggested.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: I shall make progress with my speech.
It would be impossible to wind up the debate without mentioning the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is she?"] I understand that the right hon. Lady informed the Chair that she would be slightly delayed in returning for the wind-up speeches because she is attending a dinner in honour of the late Ian Gow—a friend and an individual for whom I had enormous respect. I forgive her and hope that these views will be communicated to her. Speaking last Monday to friends of mine—and of the Government Chief Whip—on Chicago Council about foreign relations, she said:
a little less silence might be called for.
We got full value this afternoon, when the right hon. Lady outlined five principles, with the implied, perhaps even explicit, threat of going critical if the Prime Minister does not stick to them. She said that she was in favour of the broad band of the exchange rate mechanism and that,
it is not necessary to go beyond that.
The Prime Minister has said that we shall soon move into the narrow band of the ERM. He told The Daily Telegraph last week:
We accept the principle of a single currency.
Clearly, war is declared between the Treasury Bench and the Conservative Back Benches. I urge the Prime Minister, in his interests and those of the country, to ignore and defy the instructions and advice from the Finchley bunker.
I understand that the Prime Minister is a cricket fan. Like me, he attended the second test last week. It was the first cricket match I had seen; it took me only an hour to find out who was batting! When I heard that the Prime Minister was there, I thought that he must have been thinking back to the memorable words that were uttered in the House last year by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). Speaking of the previous Prime Minister's tactics on Europe, he said:
It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find, the moment the first balls are bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain."—[Official Report, 13 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 464.]
The right hon. Lady still seems to be breaking bats. In the interests of our country, the Prime Minister would be wise to avoid that.
Divided at home, isolated in Europe, the Government continue cynically to put party before country in these vital negotiations. Because of that and because, unique among our debates on this formula since 1983, the Government have not had the courage to table a motion, we will vote against them at 10 pm.
The greatest evidence of the Government's confusion was revealed in their obsession with the "F" word—federal. It appeared last week in the latest of three draft treaties produced by the Luxembourg presidency. I remind


my colleagues who quoted copiously from that draft that it is simply a draft and that many changes have been made in the various documents.
The latest draft was tabled last Monday by the Luxembourg presidency, and our Foreign Secretary promptly pressed every panic button in sight. He ignored the discussions on the three pillars and the substance of the final form of the treaties. He ignored the suggested new competences of the Community that were tabled at the same meeting and the sections about majority voting and the powers of the European Parliament. At his press conference afterwards, it appeared that nothing mattered more to Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs than the inclusion of the word "federal".

Mr. Hurd: That is entirely wrong. I did not even mention the matter at my press conference until I was asked. I mentioned all the other matters which the hon. Gentleman said that I failed to mention. He has got it exactly the wrong way round.

Mr. Robertson: Sources close to the Foreign Secretary said that he was slightly agitated by a comment from Jacques Delors, who was not even a member of the intergovernmental conference.
As has been said in the debate, "federal" is a trigger word which is confusing and heavy with conflicting symbolism signifying different things to different people. That is why it does not appear in any of the declarations of the confederation of Socialist parties of the European Community—not because we are afraid of the word, but because it obscures rather than illuminates the issues at stake.
However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said, when the chairman of the Conservative party applied for membership of the European People's party in April, he made it absolutely clear that the application enjoyed his full support and that of the
Prime Minister as Leader of the Conservative Party.
Sir Christopher Prout, the leader of the Conservative Members of the European Parliament, was clear and unambiguous in his letter backing that application. He wrote:
I should like to emphasise that my colleagues fully support, inter alia:
The institutional development of the Community into a European Union of a federal type".
He went on to say that they believed in the development of a common foreign and security policy within Europe. He then stated that he and his colleagues believed in
the establishment of an Economic and Monetary Union with an independent European Central Banking System and the ultimate goal of a single currency.
That application came not with the imprimatur of an obscure Member of the European Parliament, but in the name of the chairman of the Conservative party and the Prime Minister. When we hear so much noise about the word federal and what it means and how important it is to the British Government, we must bear that carefully in mind.
In a week of desperate, demeaning and pleading visits around European leaders, the Prime Minister has claimed a so-called triumph—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary may hum and hah. Is he going to pretend that

there are no divisions of opinion or a stark and obvious contrast between the Prime Minister's words and those uttered by his predecessor even this afternoon?
The triumph that has been achieved in a week of meetings has been the exorcism of one word and a little extra time before the Government must fall into line and capitulate with the majority. That is a ludicrous semantic juggling act which simply postpones the inevitable—as inevitable as the tactic of the right hon. Member for Finchley of very noisy opposition followed by abject surrender.
It is a point of national importance that the Government's form of negotiation is uniquely unproductive. They stand out against the imposition of a single currency when they know that it cannot be imposed. They stand for an opt-out clause on the EMU when they know that the only alternative that is involved is a guaranteed second division status for this country. They stand for the rights of the British Parliament, but the same party drove through the Single European Act on three-line Whips and on a whipped guillotine motion. They may have a victory on the withdrawal of the "F" word, but on the key matters in Europe they are marginalised. Only on a common foreign and security policy, which in itself is a minority pipe dream, to which we certainly do not subscribe either, can they count on the fact that no pressure will be put on them. On all the rest, this last-legs Government are out of line and out of touch and, pretty soon, will be out of time.
The Government set themselves against all the rest on an increase in majority voting in the Council of Ministers. They set themselves against fast-track decision-making on social and environmental affairs to accompany and complement decisions that were taken on the single market for the commercial and business world. They set themselves against the powers of scrutiny for the European Parliament that are designed at least to put back some accountability to areas that have already been ceded to European level and have now been left without any scrutiny by elected representatives.
We see the European Parliament having power to supplement but not to replace the work of scrutiny on what is being done in our name in Europe. The Government set themselves against a targeted regional policy when they know that it will be necessary to make the convergence about which they talk actually work. They set themselves against the social action programme and look sillier and sillier as they become more and more isolated.
The Secretary of State for Employment—an expert on unemployment since, of course, we have the fastest rising rate of unemployment for the second time in a decade—tells us that the regulations that will come forward are a guarantee of more joblessness. However, the ordinary voter will ask the architects of unemployment in this country whether, if that kind of regulation and those kinds of proposed standards have produced the benefits enjoyed by workers in Germany, Denmark, France and Belgium, that is not a better risk to take than staying in the jobless, growthless paradise being created by this Government. The social charter makes simple, basic, elementary common sense to our partners, even the right-wing partners in Europe, who recognise that a framework of rights for working people within which the social partners can continue their own detailed arrangements is necessary to make the single market fair and effective.
The Government know that they will have to give way on some of those key issues if any agreement is to be


reached—the sort of agreement that the Foreign Secretary so reasonably explained was the outcome of any negotiations. However, the future of Britain in the new Europe is far too important to be relegated to third place behind binding Tory wounds and their faint hope of an election win some time next year. The negotiations have to be played with vision and purpose and with some idea of what role Britain needs in Europe and what we have to do to obtain it. No other country seems to be so hopelessly preoccupied with semantics and symbolism as we are and as our Government are. The Government increasingly resemble Japanese soldiers who were left behind in island jungles, unaware that the war was long over.
Won or lost, like it or loathe it, the Common Market war is over and it is no longer a matter for any of us to be in or out, cool or warm, or pro or anti-Europe or European integration. European politics is now British politics, as the previous Prime Minister knows only too well. What is at issue now is not if, but how, we fully participate in the affairs of the European Community.
Instead of emulating our endless and self-indulgent guerrilla war over words, the other countries in Europe are engaged and succeeding in the substance of what Europe is all about: in the reform of the common agricultural policy with all its impregnable lunacies; in developing a Community industry policy that will enable Europe to compete effectively with Japan and the USA; in research and technology; and in looking to the enlargement of the Community, towards embracing with enthusiasm the vibrant economies of the EFTA countries and providing realisable targets for Europe's new democracies, the countries of central and eastern Europe.
In the week when Germany's capital has moved 500 miles to the east, Britain has moved even further to the periphery of the Community. We should be looking forward to the opportunities of Britain's presidency of the Community in the last half of next year, establishing what our priorities will be for the post-1992 Community. That is what is preoccupying Opposition Members, because that is looking forward.
If the Government were less interested in saving their own skins and more interested in the national interest, they would be doing the same. What can Britain do for Europe and what can Europe do for the people of Britain? Those are worthy and proper questions for our country to have the answers to. Sadly, the country will get genuine leaders who are willing to answer them only when they have a new Government—a Labour Government—and the sooner the better.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): This is the fourth of these debates that I have had the privilege to take part in in the past two years. Since I have been a Minister, I have taken part in a great many European debates and, if it is not too trite to say it, it is on such occasions above all that the House rises above party political point scoring. In general, there is an adversarial system in the House—the Chamber reflects that system, unlike those of many of our counterparts who have hemispherical chambers which perhaps reflect a less adversarial system. It is ironic that a less adversarial and less partisan approach is reflected in European debates.
Of all the European debates in which I have taken part, none has been as great or as serious or has been graced by

so many distinguished parliamentarians as this one. I counted two former Prime Ministers, two former Chancellors, one former Foreign Secretary, and a number of former Cabinet Ministers, and many other distinguished right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Back Benchers, who have a good deal of experience in these matters and have participated in such debates for many years.

Mr. Devlin: Like my hon. Friend, I feel that this is an important occasion and that the House should have been able to express its views. Given the large number of former Prime Ministers and Privy Councillors who have spoken today, would not it have been better to schedule a two-day debate for the subject so that the whole House could take part?

Mr. Maude: Those are not matters for such as I to decide. I would have had no regrets about a longer debate —it is valuable. The seriousness of the debate reflects the fact that the issues involved go to the heart of what the House of Commons is about.
The debate has lifted us above and beyond the narrow short-term perspectives of party political politics, with one or two exceptions. The vacuum that most of us perceived in the early part of the debate came from the Opposition Front Bench. I except from that comment those Liberal Democrats and Labour Back Benchers whose speeches were distinguished by seriousness, thought and independence.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) signally failed to rise to this parliamentary occasion. I feel inclined to buy shares in the press cutting service to which he subscribes—he must be comfortably its best customer. I am gratified that one of my modest offerings found its way into his speech. I do not think that the press cutting service received a fee for that, because it was left over from a previous speech. This was at least the eighth time that that quotation has been used in such debates, and I am becoming very fond of it. It is nice to have it repeated on these occasions.
There was a serious vacuum in the Opposition Front Bench. The right hon. Member for Gorton signally failed to answer the questions that he was asked, and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), when I asked him a couple of simple questions, gave an inadequate answer and then refused to amplify.
The European Community is now a powerful force in the world, especially in economic terms. It and its members were the first to provide help for the reforming countries of eastern and central Europe, and it is forging strong and flexible bonds with those countries through the association agreements now being discussed to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) referred. It is correct that it was a British plan that was readily accepted by our partners in the Community, and we hope that the discussions will be brought to fruition later this year.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, in the discussions being conducted with the countries of the European Free Trade Association, we seek to create the largest single market that there has ever been. It is now not controversial to predict that both sets of discussions are likely to be preliminaries to a substantial enlargement of the Community in the coming decade.
If I judge the sense of the House correctly, that development is regarded as desirable and inevitable by a majority of hon. Members, if not by a consensus. As it grows and as its economic weight develops, the Community will have its special duty reinforced as the world's largest trading bloc and it must exercise its power responsibly. The Community must be sure that it leads the discussions in the general agreement on tariffs and trade towards a liberal free-trade solution. The day the European Community seems more interested in its internal debates and in its internal evolution than in its relationship with the wider world will be the day the Community begins to die.
The single market has most enhanced the Community's status in the eyes of the world. That cause has been passionately espoused by Britain. We have urged it with our rhetoric, driven it in the negotiations and implemented it in practice. I was interested to learn that yesterday one of the Commissioners, Mr. van Miert, said at a conference in London that, once a directive has been agreed, Britain was better than any other country at translating it into national law. He contrasted Britain with Italy where, he said, they were good at making fine European speeches, but had a poor record at turning European law into Italian law. He said that he was not content with the Italian record of living up to their European commitments.
No member state has a better record of compliance and implementation than Britain. It is right that we should recognise that certain consequences flow from that. If a member state dislikes a proposal and judges its effects to be harmful, two courses are open to it. The first is to agree to the measure but subsequently not to implement or enforce it, thus leaving it a dead letter. The second course is to seek changes in negotiation to render it acceptable, and to reject it if such changes cannot be achieved. We take the second course, and we usually achieve the changes that we seek. It is very rare, where there is qualified majority voting, for Britain to be outvoted. However, it must be clear that the extension of qualified majority voting is less acceptable to a country that religiously implements agreed measures than to countries that take a more relaxed view of their legal obligations.
We cannot go along with the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats in their headlong rush down that track. Those who advocate it must be prepared to answer the question: do they believe that Britain should abandon its rigorous approach to implementation, or are they content that Britain's businesses should be disadvantaged relative to their competitors in more relaxed regimes abroad? That is an important question which has to be answered if those proposals are to be pursued.
Two measures under discussion illustrate the dangers —the directive on part-time and temporary work, and the directive on working time. Both would reverse growing flexibilities in the labour market. Many have pointed to the growing benefits of part-time—what is known in the Community as "atypical"—work. I quote from the European Commission's own annual economic report. It says:
Rising wage pressure in a context of still high level of unemployment points to the need for more fundamental structural reform in labour markets to strengthen employment creating investment … Further obstacles to employment creation should be removed and wage setting

procedures should allow a fuller reflection of differences in productivity so as to improve adjustment of demand and supply of labour.
Those directives would run directly counter to that spirit, and they would carry huge costs in the United Kingdom alone. As we are the country which, history suggests, is most likely to implement such directives, if agreed, it seems to me that we have an overwhelming case for resisting them. Equally, we have an overwhelming case for resisting the extension of qualified majority voting to other similar measures.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt comprehensively with the discussions on political union at the outset, and I have little to add. The debate shows how the Government's approach carries overwhelming support in the House and, I believe, in the country. It must surely be right to seek improvements to the treaty of Rome. It must surely be right to develop more and better means to co-operate closely to do those things together that cannot effectively be done separately. That was the approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) in her speech at Bruges and it is an approach which, with support elsewhere in the Community, we shall continue to press. Again, if I judge the sense of the debate correctly, that is what hon. Members of all parties would like us to pursue. Essentially, the House would want us to press improvements in co-operation between Governments.

Mr. Stuart Bell: The Foreign Secretary said that he would leave to the Financial Secretary the debate on economic and monetary union, and on the hard ecu. It would be useful for the House if the hon. Gentleman could dwell on that.

Mr. Maude: I will come to that in a moment. On the political union discussions, it must be right for us to urge our approach, to seek progress on these fronts from within the negotiations and to be, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, at "the heart of Europe". The House would expect that, and I believe that the House would support it.
But the House would not expect us to agree, nor would the House support, the adoption of a federal goal for Europe. It may be as my right hon. Friend said, that the phrase has different meanings for different people. It may be that those who urge a federal goal are visionaries with their eyes cast forward to an inevitable federal destiny, but I do not believe that it is a destiny which the country desires or that the House would accept. I say again to the House that we shall not ask it to do so.
I turn now as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) suggested I should, the discussions on economic and monetary union. Those discussions have been disappointing in many ways—but only to those commentators who promised themselves blood, conflict, drama and division. Week after week they have waited, fingers poised over the pre-programmed key of their word processors which prints "Britain isolated". I fear that they may be disappointed yet. Some have urged that we should seek conflict by declaring in advance that we will use our veto, as if we were faced with an unalterable text which had either to be accepted, or rejected. This is not how it works.
The right hon. Member for Gorton demonstrated his clear failure to understand how the process of negotiation in the European Community operates. He jeered at the Foreign Secretary's description of negotiations, which was


that one argues and argues and then agrees if the outcome is acceptable. That seems a pretty accurate description of negotiations. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman would suggest in its place—perhaps he would agree and agree and then argue if the result were unacceptable.
We are talking about a process of negotiation. Treaty changes can be agreed only by unanimity. The negotiation is to establish what it is that all 12 member states are agreed upon. Some have said that we should set out what we will agree to in detail and in advance. It is not fudging the issue or being evasive to say that it would be premature to do that. We are only halfway through the negotiations. The propositions are not yet fully formulated.
We can say, and we have said, that there are some things that the treaty should not contain. We will not, for example, accept treaty changes that commit the United Kingdom to take part in a single currency. To answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I accept that that includes an irrevocably fixed exchange rate. They both amount to full currency union. We will not accept treaty changes that commit us to take part in that, but that is not to say that there will never be a single currency. It is not even to say that Britain will never be part of a single currency. It may be that, years hence, a future British Government and a future British Parliament will want to decide whether Britain should take part in a single currency, but that will be a decision for that British Parliament and that British Government at that time.
The balance sheet of economic political and constitutional advantage and disadvantage cannot be struck until then. Those who argue that we should try to strike that balance now—and either rule it in or rule it out for definite—are submitting to a fallacy because if we were to stand aside—

Mr. Robertson: rose—

Mr. Maude: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way to him because I have only four minutes left.
If we were to stand aside from the negotiations, we should debar a future House of Commons from making that decision.

Mr. Robertson: rose—

Mr. Maude: No, I am sorry: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I have only four minutes left and I want to come on to the hard ecu, which may well be the matter in which the hon. Gentleman is interested. If we were to stand aside from the negotiations and not take part in them, we should debar a future House of Commons from making that decision. Equally, if we committed ourselves now to a single currency, we would pre-empt that future decision. Both approaches are unacceptable.4
I believe that the House and the country support our approach. Indeed, that position is increasingly accepted and understood by our partners in the Community. We are really saying that, as this is not something that can be agreed at this stage, we should concentrate on those matters on which agreement can be reached.
One large and important area that was scarcely discussed until the last 12 months is stage 2 of economic and monetary union. It is now pretty clear that there will be a hardened ecu of some sort in stage 2, which will be

much more widely used than today. However, many questions remain unanswered. No one has yet decided the route by which it should be hardened—whether it should be done by the British, Spanish or German approach or by that of the Commission. The matter of whether it should be issued in note and coin is also undecided, as is the issue of whether it should be managed by a monetary institution. Perhaps those are not matters of fundamental principle; they are essentially technical but crucial issues which have to be decided and on which there are almost as many views as there are Governments in the Community.
The debate continues, and it is a debate which has been initiated, led and profoundly influenced by Britain. The right hon. Member for Gorton said that he would seek to divide the House because—I paraphrase—he thought that he could exploit some grubby short-term party political gain. I believe that he misjudged the mood of the House—

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Mr. Maude: I know that he—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way".] I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time.

Mr. Maude: I know from the expressions on the faces of his right hon. and hon. Friends when he made his speech that the right hon. Member for Gorton misjudged the mood of his party. His party wanted this matter to be taken seriously. It wanted a serious debate so that the House could express its view—

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman occupied 45 minutes earlier with absolutely nothing. I shall not allow him to take up my time when I have something to say.
The right hon. Gentleman promised to set out the party's proposals. He set out several things that his party would seek. Two of them are not up for grabs in this negotiation in any case. The country can be grateful that his party is not taking part in the negotiations. The Labour party's approach has been characterised by waffle, muddle, drift and deceit, and the House will be glad that this Government, this Prime Minister, this Foreign Secretary and this Chancellor of the Exchequer have conducted these important negotiations.

Mr. Derek Foster: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn: —

The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 312.

Division No. 196]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Barron, Kevin


Allen, Graham
Beckett, Margaret


Anderson, Donald
Beggs, Roy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bell, Stuart






Bermingham, Gerald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Blair, Tony
Loyden, Eddie


Boateng, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Boyes, Roland
Macdonald, Calum A.


Bradley, Keith
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
McKelvey, William


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
McLeish, Henry


Callaghan, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Madden, Max


Canavan, Dennis
Marek, Dr John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Martlew, Eric


Cohen, Harry
Maxton, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Meacher, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Meale, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cousins, Jim
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cox, Tom
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Crowther, Stan
Morgan, Rhodri


Cryer, Bob
Morley, Elliot


Cunningham, Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dalyell, Tam
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Darling, Alistair
Mullin, Chris


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Murphy, Paul


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dewar, Donald
O'Brien, William


Dixon, Don
O'Neill, Martin


Dobson, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Doran, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Pike, Peter L.


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Prescott, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Primarolo, Dawn


Eadie, Alexander
Radice, Giles


Eastham, Ken
Randall, Stuart


Fatchett, Derek
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Richardson, Jo


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Robertson, George


Fisher, Mark
Rogers, Allan


Flannery, Martin
Rooker, Jeff


Flynn, Paul
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Foster, Derek
Rowlands, Ted


Foulkes, George
Ruddock, Joan


Fraser, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Fyfe, Maria
Sheerman, Barry


Galbraith, Sam
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Galloway, George
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Skinner, Dennis


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Gordon, Mildred
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Gould, Bryan
Soley, Clive


Graham, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Stott, Roger


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Strang, Gavin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hain, Peter
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Turner, Dennis


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Vaz, Keith


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Walley, Joan


Henderson, Doug
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wareing, Robert N.


Hood, Jimmy
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Hoyle, Doug
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wilson, Brian


Janner, Greville
Winnick, David


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Worthington, Tony


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil



Leighton, Ron
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Livingstone, Ken
Mr. Ray Powell.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Alison, Rt Hon Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Allason, Rupert





Alton, David
Fearn, Ronald


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Amess, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Amos, Alan
Fookes, Dame Janet


Arbuthnot, James
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Forth, Eric


Ashby, David
Fox, Sir Marcus


Aspinwall, Jack
Franks, Cecil


Atkins, Robert
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
French, Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Fry, Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gale, Roger


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Gardiner, Sir George


Batiste, Spencer
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gill, Christopher


Beith, A. J.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bellingham, Henry
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bendall, Vivian
Goodlad, Alastair


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Benyon, W.
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorst, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Body, Sir Richard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gregory, Conal


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Boswell, Tim
Grist, Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bowis, John
Hague, William


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brazier, Julian
Hanley, Jeremy


Bright, Graham
Hannam, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Haselhurst, Alan


Budgen, Nicholas
Hawkins, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butler, Chris
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carttiss, Michael
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Cash, William
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hill, James


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hind, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Churchill, Mr
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Conway, Derek
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howells, Geraint


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cormack, Patrick
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cran, James
Irvine, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irving, Sir Charles


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Janman, Tim


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnston, Sir Russell


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kilfedder, James


Dykes, Hugh
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Eggar, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Emery, Sir Peter
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knapman, Roger


Evennett, David
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Farr, Sir John
Knox, David


Favell, Tony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman






Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Latham, Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Lawrence, Ivan
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Sackville, Hon Tom


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Livsey, Richard
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Shelton, Sir William


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shersby, Michael


Maclean, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Speller, Tony


Madel, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Major, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malins, Humfrey
Squire, Robin


Maples, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marlow, Tony
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stevens, Lewis


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stokes, Sir John


Mills, Iain
Summerson, Hugo


Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Monro, Sir Hector
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thornton, Malcolm


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tracey, Richard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trippier, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Paice, James
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Waller, Gary


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Walters, Sir Dennis


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Watts, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wheeler, Sir John


Pawsey, James
Whitney, Ray


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilkinson, John


Portillo, Michael
Wilshire, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Price, Sir David
Wolfson, Mark


Raffan, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Yeo, Tim


Riddick, Graham
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas



Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Tellers for the Noes:


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Mr. David Lightbown and


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

European Standing Committees

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees) be further amended as follows:
in paragraph (8), leave out lines 64 to 66 and insert—
The chairman shall thereupon report to the House any resolution to which the committee has come, or that it has come to no resolution, without any further question being put.'; and
in paragraph (9), line 69, leave out 'a resolution has been reported' and insert 'a report has been made.'.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected amendments (a) and (b) in the names of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and others.

Mr. MacGregor: I shall not detain the House long with my opening remarks. This is a—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quietly, especially those who are below the Gangway.

Mr. MacGregor: I propose that a minor amendment be made to Standing Order No. 102. It does no more than correct a procedural anomaly. On 26 March, European Standing Committee B debated an EC document on the debt of African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. At the end of the debate there was a vote on the Opposition's amendment, followed by a debate on the Government's motion. Both votes were tied and as the Chairman cast his vote against in each Division, both the amendment and the motion were defeated. Therefore, the Committee came to no resolution and no report could be made to the House. The document was stuck in a procedural limbo and the scrutiny process could not be completed. The proposed amendment would solve the problem.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I thank the Leader of the House for displaying his characteristic courtesy and allowing me to intervene. I believe that he has been engaged in some correspondence with the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. I believe also that there was an informal discussion with some members of European Standing Committees A and B. Why did he choose not to enter into formal consultations with the permanent members of the two Committees, or with representatives of those Members? Speaking as a member of one of the Committees, I find that disappointing to say the least. Does it not reveal a flaw in the structure of the Committees, which is that they do not have permanent Chairmen?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not believe that such a conclusion could be drawn. It is correct that I have been in correspondence with the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. It is correct also that I have had informal discussions with both Standing Committees. I mentioned this matter and other more wide-ranging issues that perhaps are more important. I shall not take up any of the wider issues because I think that they will form part of the wider review in which I shall wish to engage at the end of the summer, when I shall wish to consult more broadly.
The proposed amendment is a simple matter and one that I explained to the members of the Committees. I do not think that it has any of the implications that the hon.


Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) suggested. When I have explained how simple the matter is, I think that the House will understand the reasoning that lies behind the amendment. I shall explain the point before I go any further.
The amendment which we have tabled would solve the problem by allowing a report to be made that the Standing Committee had come to no resolution. Following that report, a motion could be moved on the Floor of the House in the usual way. In effect, the amendment restores the position to what it was under the previous version of Standing Order No. 102 before the start of the Session. Under the old system, a document was reported back together with
any Resolution to which the Committee had come".
That meant that the document could be reported back in the absence of a resolution.
We are dealing with a technical and procedural anomaly. Rather than devise some new system, such as obliging the Standing Committee to rerun the debate—I doubt whether I would be thanked for that, given the pressures on Standing Committees, and what their members have said to me—it seems sensible to restore the previous position by means of a simple amendment.
When Standing Orders were changed last October, the Government had assumed—wrongly, as it turned out—that in the event of a tied vote in a European Standing Committee the Chairman would cast his vote for the motion. That is the normal position when such circumstances arise in Committees. When we later sought confirmation of that from the House authorities, we were told that the Chairman would in practice be advised to vote with the Noes. The possibility of a tied vote leading to no report being made had therefore not been catered for in the new Standing Order. As I said, a tied vote was what transpired in Standing Committee B.
All that we are doing is giving the opportunity, where there is a tied vote and therefore no resolution, for the matter to come back to the House rather than staying in a procedural limbo. We are introducing nothing different from what has been done in Standing Committee on previous occasions. It is as simple and technical as that.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, when the Government have lost an amendment in Committee, the changes will have no effect? Will he clarify what the position is when a motion comes back to the Floor of the House in such circumstances?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I can confirm that, if the Government had lost, tonight's proposal would not bite. It would not be relevant then; it applies only when, as the result of a tied vote, nothing can come back to the Floor of the House.
With regard to what might be done when the Government have lost, I have received one or two suggestions. That is the sort of situation that we could consider in the context of the review at the end of the summer. There is nothing in Standing Orders at present to prevent the Government from putting down a motion and enabling amendments to be tabled to that motion when it comes back to the House. I do not propose any change in that position tonight.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Shame.

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is saying, "Shame," will wish to raise that matter on another occasion, but it is not relevant tonight. I have already discussed the subject with members of the Standing Committee, and it will be relevant to the wider review that we shall carry out later. It has nothing to do with the amendment before us tonight.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The right hon. Gentleman's reply is rather dispiriting. Every change in our procedure is relevant to what we do in the Committees. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was at an early stage that the whole Committee, irrespective of party allegiance, took a certain view and found itself unable to proceed because of the procedural change.
I am happy to debate narrow points of procedure, but the right hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a long time, and he knows that procedural points have a real political impact. We are sorry that the measure covers such a narrow point.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Disgraceful.

Mr. MacGregor: I think that my hon. Friend is going overboard when he says, "Disgraceful." I repeat what I have said several times during business questions—that I intend to carry out a review of the Standing Committees at the end of the summer. There are many points that we could consider. I have already had discussions with members of the Standing Committee and will take their views into account; but I have also said that where obvious anomalies and narrow points could be dealt with in advance of the review, I would be prepared to do that. Today I am simply taking action on one such anomaly, which was not intended when the original Standing Orders were made. The amendment restores the position to what it always had been. That is all that we are debating. I assure the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that that does not mean that I am not prepared to consider the wider issues—of course I am—but this is a narrow issue.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, when the resolution comes back to the House, it will not come back for debate, but merely for voting upon, in the normal way?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) and I can confirm that.
The hon. Member for Newham, South has tabled what would appear to be two alternative amendments. The first would effectively mean that, if the Committee came to no resolution, a further one-and-a-half hour debate on the Floor of the House would be required—precisely the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton was making. In my view, that would be contrary to the whole point of shifting scrutiny of European business away from late-night debates on the Floor of the House to the new Standing Committees. We have already debated that matter, and the House has agreed to the European Standing Committees.
The hon. Gentleman's second amendment represents a novel procedural addition whereby the Minister and an opposing speaker would each make a brief explanatory


statement on the Floor of the House before the motion was moved. That would constitute a sort of mini-debate. I see no need to require even that extra stage as the relevant document will already have been fully considered in a Standing Committee. I do not, therefore, propose to accept either of the hon. Gentleman's amendments.
Let me come back to my simple point: what is proposed is a technical change to put matters right and to re-establish what was always intended to be the position.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The proposal touches on matters of considerable concern to members of European Standing Committees A and B. The Leader of the House said that the motion is a narrow technical proposal to deal with circumstances in which a Committee does not reach a decision and the Chairman has to cast his vote against the motion, which was not the position that the Government intended when the new Standing Orders were agreed in October. Nevertheless, members of the two Committees feel strongly about the matter.
During his short speech, the Leader of the House took several interventions, in which it was said that perhaps even more controversial than circumstances in which no decision is reached are circumstances in which the Committee agrees something unanimously and then discovers that the motion tabled by the Government—after the Committee's decision has been reported—is worded differently from that which it has agreed. Strong feelings have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committees who regard that as entirely wrong.
On one occasion, for example, European Standing Committee A unanimously agreed an amendment—which was initially accepted by the Minister—but found that, ultimately, a different motion was put before the House. In fairness to the Minister for Roads and Traffic, I should point out that he notified members of the Committee that that was what he intended to do. If he had not done so, it would have been for members of the Committee to spot the discrepancy between the motion on the Order Paper and the motion that they had agreed. That is totally wrong.
The important point that has emerged tonight is that the Leader of the House has said that the workings of the Committees are to be reviewed. That undertaking must be honoured, and the review must take place within the time scale that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. Whatever decisions are taken tonight, they should not preclude an examination of the proposals in the two amendments. I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us that, whatever is decided tonight, the Government will not say that they are not prepared to consider those proposals. I do not intend to develop the case tonight.
I heard the Leader of the House say that the Government's proposal was intended to remove the necessity for late-night debates on the Floor of the House and that the European Standing Committees were considered to be a better way of proceeding. It could be argued, however, that if a Committee cannot reach a decision—or reaches a decision that the Government do not like—on such important issues, the House should have an opportunity to debate them. After all, we are deciding what Britain's viewpoint in the Community should be; that is what the Committees were established to do.

Mr. Robert Hayward: I was interested by what the hon. Gentleman said about the amendments. Has he discussed them with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who tabled them? If so, did the hon. Member for Newham, South say anything to suggest that, if we were told tonight that further discussion might take place, he might withdraw them?

Mr. Pike: I have engaged in no such discussions. I would not wish to prevent my hon. Friend—who does an extremely good job in scrutinising European legislation —from presenting his case.
I am merely saying that, whatever is decided tonight, the review should take these questions into consideration. If our Ministers, who represent our country in Europe, are to express their views as strongly as possible in the interests of this country, they should know what the House feels, regardless of whether the Committee has reached a decision.
The second amendment gives us another option: a speech from a Minister lasting a couple of minutes, and another of the same length from the Opposition spokesman.
At present, motions such as this are decided forthwith. We can table amendments if we wish, but there is no time for a debate. No doubt the Leader of the House would argue that, once hon. Members have seen the Order Paper, it is up to them to read the Official Report and find out why such amendments have been tabled. None the less, given the importance of the issues, I feel that the review should deal with them; it should also consider other matters, such as the way in which Ministers may be questioned and the advice that they receive.
The European Standing Committees are an experiment, but I believe that their members are beginning to feel that they are serving a useful purpose and working for Britain's interests. Almost identical views have been expressed by members of opposing parties: it is generally felt that the British interests of, for example, the food and farming industries should be protected, and that the strongest possible case should be put in the negotiations.
If experience suggests that changes are needed to strengthen the Committees, I hope that they will be made. Above all—I have said this very forcefully to the Leader of the House on several occasions, and points of order have been raised here on the subject—we must prevent Committee members from becoming disenchanted. Having spent so much time considering the issues beforehand, and then in Committee, they do not want to find that they cannot discuss the reason for any difference of view when they come to the Chamber—or, indeed, the reason for a failure to reach a decision.
Obviously the Government do not want issues to be left in limbo, with no way of reporting back and the possibility of Committee's having to consider those issues again. If the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is approved, however, the Opposition would like an assurance that the review will take place within the time scale that he has described, and that the amendments that we propose will not automatically be precluded.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I am a volunteer member of European Standing Committee A. I commend the Leader of the House for his persistent efforts to get these Committees set up and working well. That


Committee has already covered an astonishing number of subjects, ranging from rabies to vehicle emissions and the transport of live horses and ponies. It is absolutely amazing. There is a great deal more to come. I only wish that these Committees had been set up some time ago. Then we could have properly scrutinised some of the 200 or so directives that have gone through Brussels on the creation of the single market, with another 80 or so still to come.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) was right: very slowly, the Committees are beginning to function much better. That is partly due to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give my right hon. Friend credit for that.
My right hon. Friend knows my views, which I should like to be incorporated in the review. The Committees need more members, and a balance that is a much better reflection of the membership of the House. At the moment, the balance is 7:6. That is crazy. Nowhere else in the House is the balance 7:6. We also need much more notice of meetings and of the subjects. The Leader of the House has made considerable efforts in that direction. Now we get about 10 days' notice, which is very commendable, but it is difficult to read complex documents on the mesh sizes of fishing nets in northern Scotland, for example, when one has only a few days in which to do so.
The Committees are much more important than most hon. Members realise. They have attracted an enormous amount of interest throughout Europe. We are the only Parliament in Europe that is beginning properly to scrutinise with Ministers the details of legislation before those details are agreed in Brussels. It is essential that the Committees should work well and that they should not be wrecked either by the Opposition, out to embarrass Ministers and the Government, or by those on our own side who oppose virtually anything that comes here from Europe.
That is why I am a little hesitant about the proposal that has been dealt with briefly tonight: that, if the Committees do not agree with the Minister, the proposals should be debated on the Floor of the House. That would be an incentive for those hon. Members who do not like anything to do with Europe continually to wreck the Committees and make sure that nothing can be done there so that everything has to come back to the Floor of the House. It would be an incentive to wreck every single meeting of the Committees.
We heard a lot earlier today about the sovereignty of this House and Parliament. It is in those Committees that the only vestiges of the sovereignty of this House are being exercised. They will never discuss this country's exchange rate, or what our interest rates ought to be, or what our budget deficit ought to be. Those powers have long since gone from this House. I sometimes wonder whether colleagues who have recently returned to the Back Benches have any idea what it is like most of the time for most of us when we are trying to get points across to Ministers about matters that are really being decided in Europe. However, Back-Bench members of those Committees can flex a little muscle in offering up viewpoints to the Executive at a point in the timetable when it might just make a difference. To me that is marvellous. We should try to preserve those powers.
It is so rare for any Government, of any colour, to empower Back Benchers, and it is very welcome when it happens. [Interruption.] My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, has not been a Back Bencher for a very long time. When eventually he returns to these Benches, which I hope will not be for 20 years, he will find that it is very different from what it looks like on the Bench that he occupies. It is very welcome when it happens that Ministers, particularly Ministers with some control over procedure, such as the Leader of the House, make an effort to empower Back Benchers. Everything that he is doing and everything that he is suggesting is making Ministers' lives harder. We have to recognise that fact and be very grateful to him.
If our prating about the sovereignty of this House has any substance, these Committees must be strengthened and made to work. I commend the Leader of the House for his efforts.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Unlike the earlier debate, I now speak as Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation. I draw the House's attention to the amendments, which I may move later, standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself and of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes).
I am speaking on behalf of the Committee, which, up to a point, has been consulted by the Leader of the House. Alas, we have been unable to agree; hence the two amendments.
For posterity and for any readers of Hansard, I should read part of Standing Order No. 102, which describes the setting up of Standing Committees A and E and how documents are sent to them from the Select Committee on European Legislation. Line 64 reads:
The committee shall thereupon report to the House any resolution to which it has come, without further question being put…If any motion is made in the House in relation to any European Community document in respect of which a resolution has been reported to the House in accordance with paragraph (8) of this Order, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put successively—the question
and the amendments to it.
That must be read with the amendments, because, as the Leader of the House said, sometimes there is no resolution before the Committee. The Chairman, in accordance with Standing Order No. 102, cannot report, because there is nothing to report. He is empowered only to report a resolution that is passed. Therefore, we are in a state of limbo.
I dissent slightly from what the Leader of the House said about that being overlooked if there is inequality of voting. Although it has not happened yet, regardless of whether the Chairman is involved, a Committee may negative the final resolution. I suspect that that may happen in the future, which is why we are holding this debate.
The Select Committee believed that that matter could be resolved in two ways. If a two-and-a-half hour debate had been held upstairs, the prospect of another hour and a half on the Floor, which would be the result of amendment (a), might not be appetising. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said, if the Committee cannot not reach a decision on an important matter, there is at least a case for it to be debated on the Floor. That is the Select Committee's first preference; it would at least show democracy and freedom of speech in


action. However, we all want to avoid too many debates being held on the Floor, which is why all the documents are automatically being sent upstairs.
Amendment (b) would provide an opportunity for the Minister who is moving the motion, of for an hon. Member who is moving an amendment, to explain it before the vote. Without such an opportunity, the motion that the Government table, regardless of what happened upstairs, may be different from the one that was originally tabled. For example, they may have second thoughts because of the debate upstairs or because something had been brought to their attention by an outside body.
If there was to be a vote without voice in those circumstances, the basic procedures of the House of some form of debate before a decision was taken would have been broken. When looking for an alternative, it was suggested that the mover of the motion and perhaps another hon. Member selected by Mr. Speaker could make a brief statement explaining what was happening. Then, at least, when the Division was called, even those reading Hansard would have some idea of the relative merits of what had happened. In those circumstances there would also be a record of the Committee proceedings upstairs.

Mr. David Harris: How brief is a brief explanation? Is the speech that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is making now a brief speech? Does he know of a precedent where a brief explanatory statement is referred to in the Standing Orders?

Mr. Spearing: There are two precedents for such a procedure. The first is when a motion is moved on the Floor of the House for committal to a Select Committee or Special Bill Committee, of which, alas, we have few these days. In those circumstances, a short statement can be made. That procedure is not used very often, but it exists. The other precedent is better known and is a slightly lengthier procedure: it is the ten-minute Bill. We all know that the so-called ten-minute rule does not exist. However, I think that the relevant Standing Order refers to a short speech or statement by the mover of the motion and by anyone who wishes to oppose it. By a sensible convention, speeches are made more or less within the 10-minute period. Mr. Speaker has the power to determine matters. As the ten-minute Bill procedure works reasonably well, a similar procedure might be applied in these circumstances.

Dr. Godman: There is another example of the short statement. Ministers in the European Standing Committees make brief speeches. The Chairman of European Standing Committee B, of which I am a member, have specified succinctly and distinctly that a brief speech is one that takes up less than 10 minutes of the Committee's time. As a result of those Committees, Ministers are getting into the habit of making brief statements that take less than 10 minutes.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that procedure which is built into the European Standing Committees. Being slightly venturesome, I suggest that that development and my proposal show how the House, by agreement—I hope that the Leader of the House will think again tonight—evolves to the needs of new situations. Whether or not we welcome

those situations, the House builds into its procedures, according to need, precedent upon precedent.

Mr. Hayward: What about the presentation of petitions? I think that there is no specific timetable identified in the Standing Orders for the presentation of petitions, but convention requires a brief speech to one.

Mr. Spearing: This is what the House of Commons is all about. We are pooling our experience and ideas. I am grateful for all those points because they support amendment (b).

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about applications under Standing Order No. 20? The time for those is regularised at about three minutes in which an hon. Member must make a statement about an extremely important matter and get his message across in that extremely short space of time.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We should have thought of Standing Order No. 20 applications—goodness me. Of course, there is a distinction between making a case and making a statement. We are discussing statements. They may involve a little bit of argument, but the conventions of the House are quite clear. All those matters have worked so successfully that we must be reminded of them. Standing Order No. 20 applications might be an excellent precedent, although the procedure is limited to three minutes, which is a more recent rule. As we proceed, we find that there is a case for amendment (b).
I take up another point with the Leader of the House which is not entirely accurate. He said that the motion would restore the position to what it was before. It is quite correct that it restores the position in the old Standing Orders. There was an opportunity when the old Standing Committees—the ones that met only once—came to a decision and it came down to the Floor of the House, for a motion to be moved without report from the Chair. However, I remind the Leader of the House that we are dealing with a different procedure in the round, in particularly the vexed question of ultimaticity, about which the Select Committee on European Legislation was particularly concerned.
Everything now goes upstairs unless the Government or the Minister moves it on the Floor of the House. Under the old procedure, everything had to go upstairs on a motion at 3.30 pm unless any 20 hon. Members rose or the usual channels were involved. Therefore, there is now a slight difference, in that it is more likely that more controversial matters will go upstairs directly which might have been taken on the Floor of the House, with either 20 hon. Members standing or, as we know in these matters, an indication that 20 hon. Members would do so. We are not quite in parallel positions.
Indeed, the likelihood of a defeat may not be quite as rare as some people suppose. First, such matters are rather more controversial than before. Secondly, they are not at the initiative of the Government—in other words, the document under discussion and the arguments for or against it are not entirely originated by the Commission and the Council. The opinion of the Government is their opinion, but that complicates the matter. Thirdly, the motion or the decision of the Committee or of the House is only an opinion and not a final decision, and is not


subject to post-Council report or catechism of the Minister. Fourthly, the Government may be in negotiation.
Fifthly, there is a good deal of cross-party view. Often, such matters are not a party matter at all, other than the view of the Government, which may or may not please all their supporters in the Committee. Sixthly, the timing is in the hands of the European Council. The material that is being discussed in those Committees is entirely different from that to which we were hitherto accustomed. Perhaps such events may be a little more frequent in future, although a tied vote may of course be rare.
I ask the Leader of the House again to consider the option of amendment (b). I can understand why he would be hesitant about amendment (a), because that could take an enormous chunk of time and would be a re-run. Certainly, short statements would have the advantage that those who read Hansard—it is an official document of this House; it contains the reason why decisions are taken—will be able to read the record. It would take a relatively short time and, above all, would connect voice and vote, which historically has been the procedure of the House.

Sir Peter Emery: I shall be very brief. The House will accept that the work of myself and of my Committee are the factors that brought about the appointment of the European Committees. The House should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for his interest in those Committees, the way in which he brought them forward and his attempts to ensure that they will work, which perhaps was not the case with previous Leaders of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) mentioned the volume of work. In the review that the Select Committee on Procedure stated that it would carry out, it was orginally envisaged that there should be five committees doing the volume of work which is having to be carried out by two.
While I would not cross swords with my colleague, the Chairman of the European Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I assure the House that the amendment moved by the Leader of the House would restore the working of the committees to the way that it was originally intended that they should report. That may not be right, but he is returning to the recommendations of the Procedure Committee.
Amendment (b) tabled by the chairman of the European Standing Committee, may have some special value. I would like to consider it in depth. This is not the time to introduce it, but it should be considered in the review.
As far as the House is concerned, the recommendations of the Leader of the House today—I am grateful that he is making them—would restore the working of such committees to the method of reporting envisaged by the Procedure Committee when we made our report and when those recommendations were accepted by the House.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I assure the Leader of the House that the reason why I made what might have appeared to be a somewhat critical

comment in an earlier intervention was because of my belief that permanent members of those Committees work extremely hard—that comment may seem to reflect a lack of modesty, as I serve on such a Committee. Therefore, it is right and proper that those members should be consulted, even when the matter before the House is of a technical nature, as the Leader of the House claims is the case tonight.
With respect, that is where the right hon. Gentleman and I part company. Apart from all else, his amendment highlights a certain weakness in the modus operandi of the two Committees. I put my name to these amendments and I think that they would improve matters. I favour the brief statement made by a Minister at the Dispatch Box. We have been given examples of precedents of such statements from both sides of the House.
Sadly, the Committees are getting used to brief ministerial statements, as I said in an intervention. If the Leader of the House rejects amendment (b) this evening, it is certainly worth returning to when the consultations on the review that he has promised for the late summer takes place. I am grateful for his promise on the consultations with, among others, the permanent members of the Committees.
The Committees have some structural weaknesses. I regret the absence of specialist advisers and I also think that they should have permanent Chairmen, although the Chairmen of Standing Committee B have left me with no complaints.
As regards amendment (a), I do not envisage any massive problems in bringing a subject to the House for a 90-minute debate late at night. Hon. Members can choose to stay or to go, but some of us are sufficiently interested in such matters to take part in debates, whatever the hour. I remind those present that when we debated the astonishing verdict of the President of the European Court of Justice vis-a-vis the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, there were fewer than 35 hon. Members here.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) referred several times—I have some sympathy with her remarks—to the sovereignty of the House. When the Minister for Shipping came to the Dispatch Box to announce the interim verdict, what he said was significant in terms of a diminution in the sovereignty of the House. Power now belongs to the supreme court that sits over the 12 legal systems, although the United Kingdom has a Scottish and an English system. The House's sovereignty is slipping away, as I have said many times.
The Committees deal with some matters which are less than important. However, I am given to understand—perhaps the Leader of the House will correct me if I am wrong—that Standing Committee B will soon debate a proposal from the European Commission to the effect that the European Community is to become a signatory to the European convention on human rights. If that matter comes before Standing Committee B, it will be a remarkable recommendation from the 17 unconstrained civil servants in Brussels.
I stress that amendment (b), which deals with the brief speech and the rejoinder from the hon. Member who disagrees in Committee, should be accepted. We must also examine the issue of permanent chairmen and, equally important, that of specialist advisers being appointed to the Committees to assist the permanent members to carry out their functions more competently.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The Leader of the House said that we were dealing with a narrow, technical point and that anything other than than technical point is not relevant to the debate. However, I hope that he will appreciate that the issue is so fundamental that we cannot let it go at that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) rightly told the Committees that people all over Europe are watching them. I confirm that they are the main talking point in the pubs of Southend, and for that reason we do not intend to let the matter go so easily. The Leader of the House is the guardian of democracy, so we must get it right. I sometimes think that, in relation to the Committees, he is like the public relations officer of a tobacco company.
I read in the newspapers this morning that to try to obtain our good will for the European Community, we shall all be offered two free trips to the continent. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South is delighted, but when I think of the poor pensioners in Southend who are doing so badly and who are so hard up these days, it seems outrageous for the Government to spend taxpayers' money by allowing every hon. Member two free trips to Europe, whether he needs them or not, and free hotel accommodation. I am sure that the Chief Whip would never have agreed if he had been involved.
Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend has mentioned me twice, and I am grateful for his giving way so quickly. I recently had to go to the European Parliament in Strasbourg to plead the case of my constituents who work for Toyota. I was glad that I was able to do so, but I did it courtesy of the European Democratic Group. That is not right—such trips should be paid for by the House, especially as the European Member of Parliament for the constituency—Mr. George Stevenson—turned out to be absolutely useless and did not raise the issue at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. In responding to that, the hon. Gentleman must remember that we are dealing with a comparatively narrow motion.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I will not pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South. The point that I was making was, as you rightly said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we must think of our duties as Members of Parliament on this narrow issue. I am sure that if my hon. Friend, or anyone else, has to go to the continent, or anywhere else, provision should be made. That is rather different from offering a free trip, whether people need to go or not. I do not think that taxpayers' funds should be offered for people to go to Europe. Why just Europe? What about Africa and other places? If we are to offer free trips to everyone, that should not be done only on the restricted issue of Europe.
The Leader of the House has proposed the motion late at night; it is now 11.4 pm. What on earth did he need the motion for? What difference does it make whether the House is told that the Committee has not come to a resolution? What is the point? Whether the Committee passes a resolution or not, the same procedures go ahead. Ministers sit round the table in Brussels and arrive at a decision. It is nothing to do with us. Whether the

Committee has reported or not, and whether the issue has been discussed does not make the slightest difference. Why do we need the motion?
The Leader of the House may say that the motion will make a difference and that we want to be tidy. He may say that we have had a wonderful report from the Select Committee saying that we had to have five Committees, and that as we have appointed only two, it is a big issue. If the issue is tidiness, why on earth can we not tell the House of Commons what the Committee has decided?
As other speakers have rightly said, Standing Committee A came to a unanimous decision. It was worried and perplexed about the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who goes rushing over to Europe to do all kinds of things and to pass all kinds of laws. He did it again only a couple of days ago. We have had the agreement on the mutual recognition of driving licences which means that anyone from Greece, Portugal, Portuguese Macao or from French Guiana will, in 1996, be able to come here and drive round our roads if he has a driving licence from any of those places. This person was out of control, and the Committee said that it must do something.
We passed a unanimous amendment—not only the Conservative Members, but all the Labour Members and an Ulster Unionist—saying to the House, "Please watch out for this guy. He is a danger to our democracy." Everyone agreed to that. What happened? The House of Commons was not told, because the Government say that they will report only the decisions of Committees with which they agree. If they do not agree, they will not tell the House of Commons the decision. If the Leader of the House has tabled the motion for tidiness and to be consistent, why not tell the House when the Committee comes to a decision and not just when it has a tied vote?
I have a feeling that there is something very strange here. If the Leader of the House is a guardian of democracy and he wants to tell us every time the Committee comes to a decision, including when it has a tied vote, why will not he tell us when the Committee passes an amendment? Why will he not give it the chance to decide?
It is rather sad. I have not been here for 900 years, but the House of Commons has. I do not know of any time in the history of Parliament at which a Committee has not been able to tell the House of Commons what it has done. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), one of the most hard-working people in the House, studies all the issues very carefully in Standing Committee B, but he has no guarantee that what his Committee decides will be reported to the House. That is terrible.
If the position is as I have described, why the hurry? A tied vote might not happen again for five years; it might never happen again in the history of these Committees, so what the heck is the hurry? If the Leader of the House wants the motion to go through, why will he not do something about the amendments that we agree to? Something very funny is going on. When we discuss the proposal at 11.8 pm, after a very busy day, and when there are all these free trips to Europe with taxpayers' money, whether we want them or not, the House should ask itself carefully what is going on. Is there something strange and mysterious?
Will the Leader of the House tell us: why, why, why did he introduce the motion tonight? Why only cover such a narrow point which arises rarely? Why is it important,


constitutionally, that we should report to the House the fact that the Committee has not made a resolution, when it does not make the slightest bit of difference?
There is a big constitutional issue here somewhere. I am not one of the clever people who can identify it, but I have often found that when an hon. Member raises such a point, the clever people—and some very clever people are here tonight—will say, "Gosh, I've got it." Something strange and unusual is going on—I wish that we could find out what it is.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am a member of European Standing Committee B and am finding its work of considerable interest. The Committee is an interesting innovation.
Some important points have been made. It was suggested a moment ago that the eyes and ears of Europe are on our Committees—[Interruption.] —and those of the people of Southend. I was reminded of G. K. Chesterton's poem to F. E. Smith at the time of disestablishment at the turn of the century. F. E. Smith had said that the conscience of Christendom was concerned about the disestablishment of the Church. As will be recalled, the poem ended with the famous words, "Chuck it, Smith." I suspect that not as many people in the pubs of Southend or other parts of the country are as concerned about these matters as they should be.

Mrs. Currie: I share the hon. Gentleman's scepticism. However, when I arrived in Strasbourg a couple of weeks ago, everybody there knew about the European Standing Committees, what they do and that I am a member. They knew more about them than I did.

Mr. Wigley: We must all be moved that our work, which is not under a microscope, let alone a television camera, is reaching parts that we had not expected.
I accept that something must be done about matters that have not reached a conclusion and which are in limbo. However, as hon. Members of all parties have said, if there is a stalemate in Committee or if the Government are defeated in Committee, that is a good enough reason to warrant those subjects being given more attention on the Floor of the House. If we are to be told that, after spending an hour in Committee questioning and receiving answers from Ministers, and a further hour and a half debating them and reaching a conclusion, our conclusion can suddenly be overturned in the House by a Government motion and without any debate, we may be led to believe that we are wasting our time in Committee and that no note is being taken of our work.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that when Ministers go to Brussels and Strasbourg they are not bound in the same way as the Government are bound here by the outcome of a debate in Committee or by a resolution made on the Floor of the House. I accept that that is the way in which we are moving forward, but if a resolution is to be changed on the Floor of the House, I should be happier if hon. Members had an opportunity to speak to it.
It is all very well to say, "Read the Hansard of the Committee," but we know that very few hon. Members who come to such debates have done so. Indeed, a couple

of weeks ago, the motion at the end of the Hansard report on our debate on the life of patents was incorrect, so those reading the report would have been misled. I understand that that is to be corrected and that the report will be reissued, but that is the sort of thing that can go wrong.
We are grateful for the consultations that the Leader of the House has had and doubtless will have again on this matter, but I urge him to take on board the need to ensure that, if a motion is to be reversed, those hon. Members who have an opinion on the matter should have an opportunity to voice it before a final conclusion is reached.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It seems a little hard when the Leader of the House is sitting there looking as reliable as Thomas the Tank Engine that he appears to be attacked from all sides. However, the point that we seek to make is important. The European Standing Committees are very Anglo-Saxon in the sense that they are developing all the time and change as we go along. Therefore, I hope that the Leader of the House will understand that if we raise points with him it is because if the Committees are to do a good job, some of their procedures will have to be altered in order to report their work to the rest of the House of Commons.
Over many years, the Community has deluged the Committees of its so-called European Parliament with paper and thrown out both directives and regulations at the speed of sound. Therefore, the House will have to look at ever more paper. Much of that paper is uneven. Some of the issues have already proved to be politically extremely sensitive and some have been of only minor or relative importance. It is clear that the work of the European Standing Committees is developing because there is a cross-party ability to examine carefully the content of what comes before them. So the Committees will be irate if they find that their opinions are disregarded in as much as they are not reported to the House.
Despite some Conservative Members, our Committee is more interested in the content of the EC regulations and directives than in fighting imaginary battles. The Leader of the House will know that, in one instance, the Committee came to a unanimous, cross-party conclusion. That conclusion was governed by the interests and needs of the British and not those of any party or group. Therefore, we were extremely discomforted to find that the conclusion had not been reported to the House. I do not accuse the Leader of the House of quite the degree of conspiracy of which some of his hon. Friends accuse him. The procedures meant that the Committee's conclusion was not reported to the House and the House was not made aware of the work which had been done in the Committee.
The Leader of the House has been very good; he has consulted the members of the Committees and is continuing that process. However, he should be aware of one of the reasons why we are so worried. If, as the recess approaches, the House does not debate in any more detail than has been possible in this short debate the changes that are needed in the procedures of the Committees, and if all the points that have been raised tonight and many others that we should like to emphasise are not taken into account in the review, we shall fear that the Committees have been set up more as decoys than as genuine scrutiny


Committees. I do not believe that that is the case. The Committees are doing a good job. They have a vital job to do.
Many of the hon. Members who have spoken about sovereignty seem to forget that power is stolen day by day. When one reads about the extension of the powers of the Commons one clearly sees that it was through the ability to take away from kings control of taxation that this House and another place took control of the political decisions of the United Kingdom. That is the way in which, if we are not careful, we shall see power leaking away from this Chamber to establishments elsewhere. The scrutiny Committees are important and they will become more important. They need to change and to operate in a way which means that at the end of the day the House of Commons is aware of the work that is going on in Committee.
If the Leader of the House feels that we have been rotten to him tonight, I assure him of one thing. We are aware of his good points and we are grateful for them. We shall continue to be rotten to him only to the degree that he does not respond to the points that we raise in the House.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: I have a question for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House which follows from what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said. I seek clarification of what happens if one of the Standing Committees accepts an amendment with which the Government basically disagree. Is it not possible under the existing regulations that the decision of the Committee could be reported in the procedures of the House even if the Government wanted to add an amemdment or comment?

Mr. MacGregor: I am glad that we have had the opportunity of this short debate. It has done a service in drawing the attention of the to the important work of the European Standing Committees. I am pleased that almost all the hon. Members who serve on a Committee and who spoke tonight said that they felt that the work was important and that the Committees were serving a useful purpose.
I can inform the hon. Member for Crew and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that I, the House, and certainly the Procedure Committee have never seen the Committees as decoys—to use her word. Rather, they are a more effective way to scrutinise European draft directives than the methods available until now. However, it is important that the Committee's work is highlighted and that the House recognises it. That is one of the advantages of this very short debate, which has ranged more widely than the technical matter that I am putting before the House.
I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I agree with her that we were already in advance of most other national Parliaments and, with this procedure, the way in which we scrutinise European legislation is now even more advanced. I should like to see other national Parliaments playing a similar role—that subject forms part of the discussions in the intergovernmental conferences—and we already have good experience in that respect.
I regard the Committees as important and pay tribute to all hon. Members who already play a constructive part in them. Other Members of the House who are not Committee Members can participate in discussions on individual directives in the European Standing Committees if they happen to be of interest to them. That is not yet happening on a wide scale, and I should like to see it happen more regularly. I recognise that the Committees involve much hard work by Committee Members, because there is a great deal of material to go through. After all, I spent four years of my life negotiating in the European Community, and I know how much material there is and how often it arrives at short notice.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South for recognising that I am trying to help the Committees to deal with their work load by ensuring that Committee members receive the papers on time. It does not always happen, but we make every endeavour to ensure that Departments distribute the relevant papers on time. Moreover, I hope that the change that I have made, within the rules of the House, to try to give Committee Members more notice of meetings will be helpful.
I am anxious to help the Committees in their work and to co-operate with them. However, I must point out to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich that that does not mean that I can respond positively to every point that is made. Clearly, that cannot be expected and, in any case, points sometimes conflict.
Tonight's debate concerns the narrow issue of occasions on which the Committee does not reach a conclusion. We are not discussing what happens when the Committee votes against a motion, although I shall consider that in the wider review. There are some complications in reaching an answer. For example, if we follow the approach that some hon. Members have suggested of putting on the Order Paper the motion that the Committee has reached and the Government then table the amendment that they believe is necessary to make it accurate or to reflect properly the Government's position, that excludes any other amendments being tabled and voted on in the House. Therefore, there are issues that we must all consider.
In the review at the end of the summer, I am prepared to look at any suggestions which I hope will come from the Committees. Some suggestions have already been made in the meetings that I have had so far. I am also prepared to look at the comments that have been made tonight.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Leader of the House extend that undertaking, since the motion does not mention the issue that he just mentioned, to the limbo question? In view of the remarks of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee and the strong feelings expressed by Members of Committees A and B, will the Leader of the House add the question of what happens to limbo? Will he look at amendment (b) as part of the review? I do not ask him to accept it but simply to reconsider it. Such an undertaking would constitute a happy outcome of our debate because I would then not need to move the amendment formally.

Mr. MacGregor: I shall certainly undertake that, in the review at the end of the summer, I am prepared to look at the points that have been made tonight. I am prepared to consider the point that the hon. Gentleman raises in amendment (b) about what happens when the Committee reaches a different conclusion at the end of its


deliberations. However, as I am sure the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), will appreciate, that must be without a commitment to accepting it, because there are other, wider considerations.
I am under pretty constant pressure from some of my colleagues to ensure that the House rises earlier than it does at present. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said that he would be happy to go on debating some of the issues for some considerable time into the night, but a number of other hon. Members are applying pressure to me to do the opposite. That is just one of the considerations that I have to take into account, but I am certainly prepared to consider the point.
I sometimes feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) sees a conspiracy under every European pebble. I assure him that there is no conspiracy on this matter; and the position is absolutely plain, and I will repeat it so that he understands it. He made it clear that he felt that, when a Committee reaches a decision, it should be reported to the House so that it was known to the House. I agree with that. At present, we have a problem that was not predicted because we thought that we had solved it. When a Committee does not reach a conclusion, nothing can be reported to the House, so the matter is in limbo and the scrutiny is not completed. That is simply not satisfactory, and I am anxious to avoid that happening again.
I repeat the simple fact that tonight we are discussing a way of completing the scrutiny process when a Committee does not reach a conclusion. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), and we are doing what the Select Committee on Procedure recommended, and what he and I thought that we had originally achieved. Therefore, it is a simple and straightforward amendment.
I believe that the debate has been useful, but I have heard nothing to suggest that our amendment is wrong. On the contrary, I believe that the conclusion of the debate is that it is right to put right this technical anomaly, and that we should proceed on that basis. As we are simply dealing with the position when a Committee has not reached a conclusion, I wish to resist amendments (a) and (b) and to commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) wish to move either amendment (a) or amendment (b)?

Mr. Spearing: I do not wish to move amendment (a), and in view of the qualified undertaking given by the Leader of the House, not amendment (b) either.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees) be further amended as follows:
in paragraph (8), leave out lines 64 to 66 and insert—'The chairman shall thereupon report to the House any resolution to which the committee has come, or that it has come to no resolution, without any further question being put.'; and
in paragraph (9), line 69, leave out 'a resolution has been reported' and insert 'a report has been made.'.

PETITION

Schools Reorganisation (Mansfield)

Mr. Alan Meale: This petition of 5,863 signatures has been gathered by Mr. Robert Fennell of Pleasley in Mansfield, ably assisted by parents, children and governors of the middle schools of Mansfield including those of Bull Farm, St. John's, Cumberlands, High Oakham, Ethel Wainwright, Windmill Ridge, Ravensdale and Berry Hill. It is in protest at the intentions of Nottinghamshire county council's education authority to reorganise middle school education in the Mansfield district, which will result in the closure of all those schools.
The petition states:
To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble Petition of the undersigned being people concerned about the proposed re-organisaton measures concerning Mansfield schools by Nottinghamshire County Council.
That we are genuinely angry such measures have been proceeded with by the Education Authority, without due regard to the overwhelming views of opposition made to Nottingham County Council by the parents of children in the affected schools, teachers, school governors and other ancilliary staff employed in Mansfield Middle Schools.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Education and Science not to agree to such changes unless and until it can be shown that proper and due regard has been paid to such views.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

National Emergency Helpline

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. Rupert Allason: I hope that it will be helpful to the House if, first, I define the type of national emergency that I have in mind, how the helpline system now works, what I believe to be wrong with it and then the details of my proposals.
Whether we like it or not, there is nothing so certain in this life as death and taxes, and a third qualifier, as it were, is national disasters. I shall outline briefly a few of the recent events that have prompted my interest in national emergencies. There have been the Lockerbie bomb, the Piper Alpha oil platform disaster, the fire in the tube station at King's Cross, the rail crash at Claphatn, the stadium riot at Heysel, the Bradford football club fire, the Hillsborough disaster, the east midlands air crash, most recently the M4 road crash, the terrible fire at Manchester airport and the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise.
All these national disasters have one thing in common —the great anguish of those who were directly involved and the anguish that was caused to those who had a direct interest in the events. Apart from recent disasters, there was the Laconia disaster and Aberfan. We now have the continuing terrorist outrages that plague our country.
In the event of a national disaster, those who are involved in broadcasting a news bulletin read out a telephone number that will enable viewers to make immediate contact, theoretically at least, with an emergency control centre. They can register their interest and sometimes they can get news. There are several difficulties with the system. First, what is the number that is to be telephoned? The number is different whenever there is a disaster.
Secondly, there have been numerous occasions when individual control centres have had their switchboards jammed. Following the Zeebrugge disaster, it was especially distressing when it took parents up to two days before they could obtain news by means of the emergency telephone number. When two cruise ships collided outside Athens and a number of British school children were involved, I understand that some anguished parents could not get through to the emergency number for three days.
That is not the only sort of anguish that can be created. For example, following the Chernobyl disaster, a Minister went on the radio and accidentally provided the wrong telephone number when referring to a helpline. There were criticisms of P and O when it created a private helpline during the Zeebrugge disaster, as there were for Pan Am shortly after the Lockerbie air crash.
The role of the helpline is to register the interest of those involved and to enable information to be obtained. It is important that the House understands the anguish of parents when they are watching television and they see events take place, such as the riot at the Heysel stadium or the bursting into flames of the football stadium at Bradford, that result in people dying in front of their eyes.
We have had a recent example of the way in which a helpline can be operated by voluntary effort. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), who helped to set up the Gulf helpline. It was a remarkable example of people pulling together to meet one common need.
My proposal is the creation of one helpline number that would be permanent. At present, television viewers, radio listeners and parents generally hear a telephone number broadcast during a news bulletin and they rush to write it down. They are assured that the number will be repeated at the end of the bulletin. They may wait until the end of the bulletin to make sure that they have written down the correct number, only to discover on dialling it that the switchboard is in a state of meltdown—that it is being jammed by calls. Other difficulties may arise. Often, someone who fails to get the telephone number will ring his local police station to find out what it is. But the local police will not know it. Similarly, the telephone operator or directory inquiries will not know the number.
I propose that the single permanent number should be available to operators, to directory inquiries and to all police officers. It will also, I hope, be printed in the front of every telephone directory along with the numbers of the other emergency services. A number that immediately springs to mind is 0800 999 999.
If we have a single permanent number, difficulties may arise if two disasters occur on the same day. Let me explain to the House what I hope the technical procedure for the operation of the system will be. The 0800 numbers are operated by British Telecom's linkline service. Linkline has eight exchanges across the country and acts as a relay service. I have discussed my proposal with British Telecom, whose representatives tell me that it would be perfectly possible to put in place an 0800 number and to arrange for relays at very short notice. At present, linkline operates for commercial organisations with five days' warning. But I am told that, if asked to do so, it could operate within a matter of hours. I hope that the prospect of two disasters occurring on the same day will not deter the Government from taking an interest in my proposal. The principle remains the same, even if some of the technical details remain to be ironed out.
There is also the question, "Who will pay?" Today we heard the news that the sex lines and chat lines alone are responsible for taking about £200 million, and I suggest that they might have money available to contribute a small amount towards an 0800 number. An alternative that might be attractive to the Government is some method of commercial sponsorship. I know that this has not been the best day in the history of Lloyd's, but perhaps an insurance company might be a suitable sponsor for such a development.
The matter is the responsibility of the emergency planning department at the Home Office, and I am grateful to the Minister of State for being here to reply to the debate. My proposal is born of common sense. I started to try to find out over two years ago whether it would be possible to institute a single permanent number. During my research, I have discovered that, in embarking on operating a helpline system, it is important to have a large number of skilled counsellors at one's disposal. Many people in the civil service already have the necessary skills to operate helplines and can relieve the anguish and suffering of those on the other end of a telephone line. I hope that, if such a system is adopted, the civil service will keep a permanent record of those who have the necessary skills.
Having discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, I understand that the Foreign Office initially found it quite difficult to cope with the flood of calls and with the great emotion expressed over the


telephone during the Gulf war, but that gradually, taking advantage of the skills of those who had worked with the Samaritans and on other telephone helplines, it got together a large group of enthusiastic people.
I believe that my proposal has the support of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has undertaken some research. Last year, an exercise was conducted near Bristol in which an entirely notional aircraft crashed on an entirely notional railway train. I hope that such a thing will never happen; the intention was to create a scenario that would test the system that I propose.
I understand—I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me more—that my proposal is entirely practicable. My noble Friend Lord Ferrers has worked hard at researching the subject, and has greatly assisted the campaign that I have conducted over the past two years.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his patience in staying to answer the debate. He has been very helpful to me in the past over other issues, and has also been helpful to my constituents. I hope that he will consider my proposal sympathetically.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) on raising such an important and interesting subject. Let me also associate myself with his comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), which were richly deserved: pulling together that Gulf war operation was a remarkable achievement.
I can, to an extent, reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay that the Government are proceeding in the direction in which he wishes us to go. First, however, I should like to describe some of the work that the Home Office has been doing under the leadership of my noble Friend Lord Ferrers, whose representative on earth I am this evening: I think that that would be helpful.
My hon. Friend referred to the spate of disasters that struck the United Kingdom in those bad years, 1987 and 1988—for instance, the tragic events at King's Cross, Clapham and Zeebrugge. It was in 1988 that, as Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), now Foreign Secretary, set in hand a review of the current arrangements for dealing with civil emergencies. He announced the outcome to the House on 15 June 1989.
My right hon. Friend concluded that the prime responsibility for handling particular disasters should remain at local level. I think that that is common ground between my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay and myself. It is at local level that expertise and knowledge reside; that is where co-ordination between the agencies responding to disaster is carried out most effectively. There was no support from practitioners—the people at the sharp end—for a national disaster squad, but there were a number of demands for much greater co-ordination. It was strongly felt that helpline communications should be put on a much firmer footing.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay on the constructive campaign that he has conducted over the past two years to develop this idea, and the practical ideas that he has presented to Lord Ferrers.
My right hon. Friend's review also concluded that improved arrangements were needed to provide national supervision of the development of co-ordinated emergency planning, and also to address some specific practical issues that have been raised by disasters. Much more co-ordination was needed. For that reason, my right hon. Friend appointed Mr. David Brook as civil emergencies adviser to the Home Office in November 1989. I only wish that such a person had been appointed earlier.
Our starting point, when we consider arrangements for responding to peacetime emergencies, is the need for the response to be local. The Government accept the need for information about any emergency to be made available quickly to those who need it, and the lead Department will play a part in that by providing Ministers and Parliament with bulletins. However, the most up-to-date and reliable information about the nature and scale of the emergency will always be available first and foremost to local agencies on the spot. They will be in the best position to collect the information, and they will have it before it is available to central Government and to Ministers. It is the local agencies which, in the end, will be best able to convey the information to the general public—certainly in the first hours, and perhaps in the first day or so immediately after a serious civil emergency.
It would also be helpful to distinguish between the different types of information that the public will be looking for in the aftermath of a civil emergency in peacetime. First, and very importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay said, people will want to find out whether their relatives and friends have been caught up in the emergency. That is everybody's natural instinct. Casualty bureaux, manned by the police, play a vital role in collating and recording information about people who were or who may have been involved and passing information to relatives and friends and, in some cases, to investigating officers.
Anybody who has any knowledge of civil emergencies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay does, will know that running a casualty bureau is a tremendously complex job. There is a huge amount of information to process and calls come in at a phenomenal rate. I choose my words carefully, particularly the word "phenomenal." For example, within six hours of the Hillsborough casualty bureaux being opened, 1·75 million call attempts were made, but only about 1,000 of those got through. Many hon. Members will know that, after the Zeebrugge disaster, the number of calls to the Kent police casualty bureau was so great that it entirely jammed the Maidstone telephone exchange, in the way that my hon. Friend described could happen, under similar circumstances, to any telephone exchange.
Our adviser, Mr. Brook, has been examining the operation of casualty bureaux as one of his key remits from the Home Secretary and Lord Ferrers. I am pleased to be able to say—my hon. Friend's debate has helped us to crystallise and put into words our proposals—that proposals have been developed that should greatly enhance the capacity of any casualty bureau to handle calls from the public and to process the information that they provide, using the latest telecommunications technology advanced linkline. With that, incoming calls can be shared between police forces, using up to 500 incoming lines.
We are looking to introduce this new facility just as soon as developments on the new police national computer, PNC2, will allow. The new police national


computer will come into operation later this year. By the end of 1991, it will be fully operational. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will then need to decide, in the light of the available machine and manpower resources, which of a number of competing applications should be given priority for implementation on the system, but the case for the early introduction of a proper casualty bureau system will be given very careful consideration in terms of getting the order of priorities right.
Persuasive though my hon. Friend's comments are about the need for rapid access into casualty bureaux, there may not be a strong case for using the same number for all casualty bureaux. After a civil emergency, the casualty bureau usually goes live and its number is publicised a little while after the disaster strikes—perhaps within an hour or so. This delay is necessary to allow the police to gather reliable information about the emergency, to call in staff to man the bureau and—very important —to arrange with British Telecom for incoming lines and telephone exchanges to be protected to minimise the risk of the system crashing, which can happen under those circumstances.
Even when the system is protected against overloading by the advanced linkline system, this delay of an hour or so will still be needed. With one casualty bureau telephone number only, publicised in the telephone book and elsewhere, perhaps, as my hon. Friend suggested, calls would be made as soon as the public heard of the emergency—which, in these days of almost instant communication, would very probably be before the bureau was functioning in a particular disaster area. Alas, this would do nothing to ease the plight of people seeking news of their friends and relatives. I recognise that the problem could be circumvented if a national casualty bureau were manned 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, like the 999 system, but that would not be a good use of police resources, especially as, mercifully, the bureau would be inactive for much of the year.
Another reason why it would not be wise to have only one telephone number for casualty bureaux is that, if two disasters strike in quick succession, as, alas, they have done, we would need to set up two distinct bureaux. There could be serious consequences if casualty information went to the wrong bureau or were lost between the two. When the bureau becomes operational on PNC2, British Telecom will set aside at least six numbers for use solely for casualty bureaux, and the number to be used will be announced on the day.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay will join me in welcoming the new system, which is based on advanced linkline. Many more calls will be handled and it is hoped that the problems of callers being unable to get through to the bureau or of the system being swamped

with calls and then failing or crashing will be overcome. The system has all the advantages of my hon. Friend's concept, but it avoids the possible disadvantages if two disasters occur close together.
The public will be looking not just for information about casualties and survivors, so I should like to say a little more about the methods by which information about the nature of a disaster and its effects on the community will be available on the new system, whatever numbers are used. It has not been decided whether it will be an 0800 or an 0345 number.
We must be cautious about basing plans for providing information to the public solely on the telephone. In many recent severe weather emergencies, telephone lines were brought down and people were left without the use of their phones for considerable periods. We must remember, too, that not everyone has ready access to a telephone, although I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer sometimes thinks that too many people have too ready access to telephones. In the aftermath of an emergency, if a telephone system has been damaged, we would run the risk of overloading the system if unnecessary calls were made.
In addition, we must never forget that, even with a free phone system dedicated to emergencies, hoaxers will use the line. It is hard to appreciate, but it is true, that a substantial number of hoax calls were made during recent emergencies. Only yesterday, the House passed a Lords amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that increased the maximum penalty for making hoax calls from five years to seven years.
The aim should be to convey information to the public without them having to telephone to obtain it. The media will always be an invaluable source of information. Nowadays, just about everyone has access to a battery-powered radio, and radio, particularly local radio, can relay up-to-date information, reflecting local circumstances, to the majority of the population. Most local authorities and emergency services include arrangements for briefing the media as part of their planning for responding to peace-time emergencies.
New systems will be introduced as soon as possible to handle the many thousands of calls that are made to casualty bureaux, and we are making good progress towards a bigger and much more flexible system. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay will feel that we have gone some considerable way towards meeting the system that he wishes to see us introduce, and I congratulate him on crystallising the issue so clearly in his excellent speech.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Twelve midnight.